Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Darlington Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Inquiries by Minister of Transport.)

(1) The Minister of Transport may hold inquiries for any of the purposes of this Act or the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933.
(2) Where any inquiry is held by, or by the direction of, the Minister under this section or any provision of the said Acts—

(a) sub-section (1) of section twenty of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, shall apply in relation to the inquiry as if it were an inquiry held under that sub section; and
(b) the Minister may make such orders as to the payment of the costs incurred by him in connection with the inquiry (including such reasonable sum not exceeding five guineas a day as he may determine for the services of any officer engaged in the inquiry) by such party to the inquiry as he thinks fit, and the Minister may certify the amount of the costs so incurred, and any amount so certified and directed by the Minister to be paid by any person shall be recoverable from him either as a debt due to the Crown or by the Minister summarily as a civil debt.—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.6 a.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I beg to move,
"That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is necessary because under Clauses 2 and 10 of the Bill, the first giving power to break up private streets and the second dealing with the attachment of brackets and so on to buildings and bridges, the Minister has to determine certain questions which it may be impossible to settle without a local inquiry. Under the Bill as it is it is not possible to hold such an inquiry, and this Clause is therefore necessary for that purpose. The Clause is similar to Section 47 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act of last year and is in common form.

11.7 a.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is it in common form? The Minister gave us no particular reasons to show that it was.
Let us take paragraph (b) dealing with the payment of costs. That may be in other Measures, but I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to explain whether the five guineas costs is an inclusive sum, because this is liable to cover a great number of cases where the inquiries may be very small, and in those circumstances we should know definitely whether the five guineas will cover all costs or whether travelling or other expenses will be added. I should like to refer to Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919. As I understood the Minister, the main reason for this new Clause is a more recent Act, but here is an instance where they are going back to an Act 15 years old, and he did not explain how that was. This is a very bad instance of a citation Clause, in which they are citing at least three different Acts. The Minister referred to the 1933 Act, I have just mentioned the 1920 Act, and there is still the 1882 Act cited. We have heard nothing about that, however, and as it is beyond the confines of my Parliamentary life, I think we ought to know the reasons for its citation.
The reason for the new Clause in connection with Clause 10 is most admirable, but the promoters of the Bill did not offer any explanation as to whether this new Clause fits in with their ideas, and I think it is unfair on a Friday afternoon for the promoters to accept new Clauses of this kind from the Minister without giving the House the least idea as to whether they fit in with the scheme of the Bill. I believe there has been an inquiry of some sort into this matter by people of ability, but we have not been told whether this new Clause fits in with their recommendations or not. Bills are sent upstairs to Committee to relieve the House of new Clauses of this kind, and to put half-a-dozen new Clauses on the Order Paper now is, I think, rather infringing on the privileges of private Members on a Friday. I therefore regret that the Minister did not move this new Clause during the Committee stage, although I am sure his omission to do so must have been for good reasons.

11.10 a.m.

Mr. THORP: The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has asked a question as to the attitude of the promoters of the Bill towards this Clause.
The Clause is not moved by the promoters, and they do not mind whether it is in or not, but I think it is drawn in somewhat wide terms. We are familiar with these inquiries that take place, and naturally the people concerned should have the opportunity of putting forward their views. There is only one part of the Clause to which I think some exception might be taken, and that is the absolute power of the Minister to certify the costs incurred and by whom they are to be paid. We are all familiar with costs in the Law Courts and elsewhere, but those costs can always be moderated, taxed, or gone through, and if they are unreasonable, they can be disallowed, and there is an appeal to a Judge from the costs which are allowed by a taxing master. In these circumstances, I regret that this new Clause has been drawn in such wide terms. It is significant that in brackets it authorises the Minister to allow reasonable costs not exceeding five guineas a day for any officer engaged in an inquiry, but there is nothing about the costs having to be reasonable when they are incurred by somebody else. I have no doubt, however, that the Minister would act reasonably in the matter.

11.13 a.m.

Mr. CHORLTON: May I ask if the Parliamentary Secretary will make sure by notification that all the interests concerned can attend. This is rather cumbering what may in many cases be a some what simple operation, but we want to feel that there is no hardship involved to any private individual or small company in connection with these inquiries. Secondly, is it necessary to have the heavy machinery of an inquiry always? Cannot something be done that is a little more expeditious and a little less costly in some cases? I agree with the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and I think he was right in raising the point—

Mr. THORP: I would point out that this inquiry is not obligatory, but that it is in the discretion of the Minister.

Mr. CHORLTON: The power still remains in the hands of the Minister, however. It cannot be decided by anybody else, and we wish the machinery of this Bill to be as simple as possible, having due regard to private interests.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: What happens if the Minister does not intervene?

Mr. CHORLTON: I am asking the same question.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. MAGNAY: The proceedings this morning seem to be an extension of the work of the Standing Committee. If the Committee had not neglected their work it would not have been necessary on the first Amendment for hon. Members to ask what it means. They may be quicker in the uptake and more competent than the Committee on which I have the honour to sit, but I would doubt it. The Committee upon which I sit took six days on one Clause of seven lines in a small Bill of seven Clauses and did the job properly. The Committee which dealt with this complex and difficult Bill, as I have gathered from the Report of their proceedings, never understood what they were talking about. The password of the Committee which dealt with this Bill seems to be expedition. Ours is competency. We have this morning an extension of the meetings of that Committee, and it is a gross affront to the House that an ill-digested Bill such as this should come up on Report stage. The Bill requires the expert knowledge of the Minister in charge, and although he has tried to make the new Clause acceptable to the House, it does not meet the wishes of the promoter of the Bill, who merely gives the new Clause an impartial blessing. I suggest that it is about time Committees upstairs did their work as well as Committee B and brought properly digested Bills to the House on the Report stage, so that the promoter at least will know whether he likes it or not and those who oppose it will have some inkling of what is proposed by the Bill. I suggest it should be recommitted for further consideration.

11.18 a.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The Committee on which the hon. Member and I sat for so many days was, I agree, a very much more intelligent Committee than the average Committee upstairs. The hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) will remember that when we were dealing with the Water Supplies Bill upstairs the Minister inserted a Clause providing that the people affected by the inquiry should be told of the inquiry through
newspapers and the official organ of the Government. The new Clause which the Minister has moved now is the ordinary form of Clause in Bills of this kind, and I want to ask him whether it does not follow that he must insert the other formal Clause providing that inquiries shall be announced through the local newspapers?

11.19 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I understand that notice of these inquiries is given in the Press.

Mr. CHORLTON: What press?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: In the local press.

Mr. CHORLTON: Is that provided in the Bill?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If the House will permit me, I will see if any further words are required to make it clear. If so they could be inserted in another place. With reference to the charges mentioned in the new Clause, they are inclusive with the exception of the cost of conveying the Minister's representative to the inquiry. It is the usual practice for all Government inquiries. It is obvious that there must be something in the nature of this proposed Clause; otherwise, opposition to the schemes might be factious.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time" put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

11.21 a.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: We have heard some curious comments on the work of the Standing Committee, and it is difficult to agree to the insertion of a new Clause when there is a feeling that the matter should have been dealt with in Committee. I formally protest against adding the Clause to the Bill in the circumstances and particularly as the Government have moved it with hardly anyone saying anything about it.

11.22 a.m.

Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: The Clause is harmless so far as its effect on this Bill is concerned, but I submit that it is wrong to include the words
or the Electricity (Supply) Acts. 1882 to 1933.
It is right that the Minister should have power to hold inquiries in regard to any of the ordinary matters referred to in this Bill, but at this late stage it is not right to seek to give power to the Minister to hold inquiries for all the purposes of the Electricity Acts from 1882 to 1933 in the absence of any explanation by the Minister as to all the different things affected by those Acts. It is a surprising procedure in the House on a Friday and on a private Member's Bill without a word of explanation. I suggest to the Minister that he should leave out the words to which I have referred. I should like to hear whether he is prepared to do anything in that direction. If not, I shall be bound to move to delete those words.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is too late now. It should have been done before I put the Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

Mr. BALFOUR: Then I should like to suggest that we should have some undertaking that steps shall be taken to limit this power. It is an abuse of the procedure for the Minister to take the opportunity of a private Member's Bill to introduce, without a word of explanation, an alteration of the statute law governing this great industry, and expect the House to accept it without a definite explanation of all its implications. I am afraid we are getting on to very dangerous ground.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. An Amendment could not be put down for the Committee stage. Could not my hon. Friend put down a manuscript Amendment for the Report stage?

Mr. SPEAKER: The time to move an Amendment to the Clause is when the Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," has been proposed. I have already proposed the Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill, "and it is now too late to move an Amendment.

Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: Before we proceed any further with the consideration of this Bill, I think it is my duty to call the attention of the House to the position in which we find ourselves. I do not know to whom I can refer for any explanation of the situation. I must remind hon. Members that the Committee stage is
the stage upon which Amendments should be made to a Bill and that the Report stage is only a stage for what I might call the cleaning up process, for dealing with anything left over from the Committee stage or for dealing with anything that needs explanation, and new Clauses which have been omitted from the Committee stage can also be moved. But here, after the Bill has been through Committee, we find six pages of Amendments brought forward on Report stage. I have been at some pains to look into those Amendments, and I find that nearly all of them are new Amendments, and I ask myself, "What on earth took place in Committee?" I am bound to inform the House that if this kind of thing becomes a common practice it will be an abuse of the procedure of the House, and will bring our procedure into disrepute.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: In view of your ruling and of the importance of this new Clause—

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not talking about the new Clause, but about the six pages of Amendments.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Surely this new Clause is quite a new departure from what happened in Committee, and will not the Parliamentary Secretary give the undertaking which has been asked for by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour)?

Mr. SPEAKER: We have finished with that new Clause.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Would it be in Order to move to recommit the Bill, so that the Committee upstairs might carry out their work and deal with these Amendments?

Mr. SPEAKER: It might be in Order, but I do not propose to accept such a Motion.

Mr. BALFOUR: On that point of Order, as such a long list of Amendments has been brought forward on the Report stage, is it possible to defer the Third Reading of the Bill to another occasion? In the case of a private Member's Bill on a Friday, with only limited time to get through this vast list of Amendments it seems to me rather unseemly that the Report stage and Third
Reading should be taken on the same day.

Mr. THORP: I fully appreciate the observations coming from the Chair with reference to the number of Amendments. There are, it is perfectly true, a considerable number, but I do hope my hon. Friends will not repeat the expression "a vast number," because it is a slight exaggeration to describe it as a vast number. There are a good number, but in the main I do not think any of the Amendments are controversial. Many of them deal with points raised in Committee, discussion on which was brought to an end by the statement that the matters raised would be met on the Report stage. I appreciate that that was not quite the correct way of doing things, but in the circumstances I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me this time, if I am responsible, and allow this Bill to proceed.

Mr. SPEAKER: In answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) as to whether we should have the Third Reading to-day after the Report stage, we must first see how we get on with the Report stage, and after we have finished the Report stage it is not for me but for the House to decide whether we should take the Third Reading then or not.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of local authority over the breaking up of private streets.)

The authority who would be responsible for the maintenance and repair of a street if it were repairable by the inhabitants at large shall have the like rights under section twelve of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, as are thereby conferred on the persons having control or management of the street.—[Mr. G. Peto.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.31 a.m.

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This and the other new Clauses are the direct results of our discussions in Committee. There is nothing new about them. On the Committee stage the Minister said with regard to this particular point:
I quite realise what it is that he is anxious about under the second part of his
clause, and I think consideration might be given to that point. It may be that the best way of meeting the difficulty would be to extend the right which we have by Clause 2 of this Bill conferred upon the authority which will ultimately be responsible for the maintenance of the road, if it is ever taken over, to include power to secure the reinstatement of the street. If my hon. Friend is agreeable, we will look into that point, and see if we can meet him on the next stage of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 12th April, 1934; col. 140.]
That is exactly what this Clause does. It extends the power of a local authority over a private street to see that it is properly repaired. An Amendment on the subject was put forward in Committee and the reason why I move this new Clause instead of accepting the promoter's Amendment, which was intended to meet my views, is because the Clause gives us rather wider scope. Every supply company have powers in their charter to break up a long list of scheduled streets, which include all the streets they are likely to want to break up. Clause 2 deals only with unscheduled streets, that is to say, with streets which may be made later on and are not included in the schedule. When someone in an unscheduled street applies for electric light then Clause 2 takes effect. It is my anxiety to make certain that this private street shall be properly repaired after the electricity supply company have laid their cables. The owner of a house in a private street is responsible for the upkeep of the roadway in front of his house until the street is taken over by the local authority. The electric supply company may leave the road in bad order after they have laid their cables, but it would not be worth while for Mr. Smith, living at No. 7, to bring an action against them on account of a pot-hole opposite his house, because there may be a perfectly good bit of road in front of house No. 9, although opposite house No. 11, again, there may be yet another pot-hole.
One cannot get a road put in order under those conditions; there must be some one authority to see that the work is properly carried out, and the only authority to do that is the local authority. Therefore, I move this new Clause to give the local authority power to see that the road is properly repaired, and, if it is not, to charge the undertakers with
the cost of repairing it. I would like to go further and put a duty on the local authority, but that would involve a good deal of legislation. This Clause, at any rate, gives them the power, and I hope that later on the Minister will see that they have also the duty, of seeing that the work is done. I hope that the promoters of the Bill will accept this new Clause. I know that my legal friends do not believe in administering partial justice, and, if they are going to do justice in some directions, they might as well do justice in the others.

Mr. CHORLTON: I beg to second the Motion.
The New Clause appears to be only reasonable after the evidence that has been given about the difficulties caused when streets have been broken up and need to be put into good repair. The New Clause would strengthen the Bill in every way.

11.37 a.m.

Mr. MAGNAY: I want to ask the mover of the New Clause to explain the effect of Section 12 of the Gasworks Clauses Act of 1847. I am very anxious about this. In Gateshead last year this very thing happened, and it is going to cost our rates £27,000 to put it right. I am not sure whether it happened in a scheduled street, but the street had not been properly paved. The contractors sub-contracted and the sub-contractors broke up the road and caused a terrific gas explosion which wrecked a house and caused a lamentable loss of life. I would like to know from those responsible for the New Clause or from the promoter of the Bill, with his abounding legal knowledge, more about Section 12 of the Act of 1847. Such an accident might happen anywhere, as it happened in my constituency, to my great regret and to the regret, I am sure, of all hon. Members.

11.38 a.m.

Mr. THORP: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. G. Peto) for referring to me as having administered justice. I have not yet attained that position. It would be extremely useful to add this Clause to the Bill. Instead of a series of people taking proceedings in order to have a road put into repair, the local authority would be authorised to take the necessary proceedings themselves, and thereby perhaps avoid a multiplicity of
litigation. In the circumstances, I shall be glad if the House will add the Clause to the Bill. With regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay), the Section of the Act of 184V authorises adjoining owners and people who have houses on a road to take steps to see that the work of relaying the street is properly done. If it. is not properly done, they can take their proceedings, as individual owners, to ensure that it is properly done. The object of the hon. Member for Bilston in moving the new Clause is to enable the local authority, if it has to get the work done properly, to act having regard to the fact that a certain number of local owners of houses are all under a grievance about the matter, notwithstanding that they may not be qualified under the Gasworks Act to initiate the procedure.

11.40 a.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I hope that the two hon. Members who moved and seconded the new Clause will not be offended if I say that the arguments in favour of it appear very plausible. I do not know exactly what the new Clause means, but I will ask a question of the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp). Suppose that a private undertaking rips up a road. If the road has already been taken over by the local authority, I take it that the Clause means that the local authority will have power to sue the private undertaker if he does not make good that road.

Mr. THORP: No.

Mr. DAVIES: I will put another question. Suppose that the road is not scheduled and the local authority have not taken it over. The purpose of the new Clause is to give the local authority power to take action on behalf of the inhabitants of that road against the private undertaker to make good that road. Is there not a danger of saddling the local authority with the expenses of litigation or with the expenses of making good the road that has been broken up? Hon. Gentlemen shake their heads.
I am a little suspicious of the new Clause, and, before we dispense with it, the Minister might come to our aid and explain exactly what it means. I am in a quandary, because, although I am a little suspicious of the Clause, I find the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is opposing it, and I am more
suspicious still when he opposes anything. He throws me into the arms of my first set of opponents, and later on I may find myself supporting the new Clause if it is opposed by the hon. Member for South Croydon.

11.43 a.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Let me read Section 12 of the Gas Works Clauses Act, 1847. It says:
If any such delay or omission as aforesaid takes place in regard to the reinstatement of the street, the person having control or management of the street, bridge, sewer, drain or tunnel in respect of which such delay or omission may take place may cause the works so delayed or omitted to be executed, and the expense of executing the same shall be repaid to such persons by the undertakers.
The purpose of the proposed new Clause is to enable a local authority to enter a street that they do not own and to carry out certain works there.

Mr. DAVIES: Would the street which they do not own be within the area of the local authority?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, the local authority would own that street if they had formerly adopted it. If the street has not been adopted, the various frontagers are the persons who own the street. Each individual frontager can require the local authority to put the street in the front of his house into a proper condition.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Can require the undertakers to do it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sorry. I should have said that they can require the undertakers to put the street in proper repair, if the undertakers feel that they cannot do it themselves. What the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. G. Peto) is concerned about is that there may be a large number of frontagers, and it may be difficult for them to act in concert, and, therefore, he wants to give the local authority power which they do not possess by transferring to them the rights of the owners of the streets. I can see a certain advantage and convenience in it, but it is a definite invasion, nevertheless, upon the owners of the street that someone can go and make up that street in a way in which they may not want. The new Clause is not in a satisfactory form, and, if it were
read a second time, it would require an Amendment to provide that the local authority shall only so act if required to do so by the persons who own the street, or the majority of those persons. A Clause giving the right to invade private property in this way, although it may have certain conveniences for this purpose, establishes a new precedent, and would need to be examined very carefully.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: The Debate on this Clause shows how far we are stretching the procedure of the House in dealing with matters of this kind. This particular Clause is not one of any great moment, but, if it were put into the Bill in this way, it would only add confusion. Speaking as one who has broken up some 1,000 or 2,000 miles of streets under all conditions, I have never yet had a case in which private owners were involved where there was any dispute between the owners of the street and the undertakers. In the Act of 1882 and subsequent Acts, but particuarly in the Act of 1882, very careful provision was made, and on the whole it has worked very well. There is great danger of introducing difficulties which may not be realised by the House at the moment, such, for instance, as in some cases putting a burden on the local authority which the local authority is totally unwilling to assume. I suggest that, when a proposal is made during the Report stage of a Bill on a Friday which may change the general statute law of the country, in connection with a matter of this kind, of no great importance but still very irritating to the parties concerned, both local authorities and undertakers, the Minister ought very carefully to consider the proposal before he agrees to accept it.

Mr. G. PETO: Surely my hon. Friend is aware that this is no new precedent. It is taken from the Gas Works Clauses Act, 1847; it is not introducing any new revolutionary doctrine.

Mr. BALFOUR: It is transferring certain powers to local authorities. If they have them already, why insert the Clause in the Bill?

Mr. PETO: They have them for gas, but not for electricity.

Mr. BALFOUR: The form in which they are applied is being changed, and that changed form is being made applicable to electricity.

11.49 a.m.

Mr. SPENS: I am doubtful about this proposed new Clause as it is at present worded. It would give a new power to local authorities. The position under the Act of 1847 is that where you have a private street, very often only made up to a small extent, and public undertakers come in and dig it up, they can only be required to replace it in the condition in which it was before they started dealing with it. That is their liability to the owners, and no more. This Clause, however, would give the right to the local authority to go in and do the work of repairing that road. Constantly there are very grave differences between the views of private inhabitants on each side of such a street and the views of the surveyor to the local authority as to the manner in which the road ought to be made up, and I think that on many occasions, if this power were exercised by the local authority, they would come in and, in making up the road, put it into substantially better condition than it was in before. They would then seek to recover the cost from the electricity supply undertaking, and the latter would say, "You are trying to involve us in substantially more cost than you ought," and probably there would be litigation between the two parties. Assuming that the electricity supply undertaking is right, and the local authority has done too much work, what is going to be the position? Is the cost of making up this private road to be borne by the ratepayers or by the prviate owners? I think, with great respect to the Movers of the Clause and the promoters of the Bill, that the wording of the Clause needs substantially more thought before it is put into the Bill in its present form.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Perhaps, with the leave of the House, I might explain that all these powers were granted to the electricity industry by the Act of 1899, which incorporated the Gas Works Clauses Act.

11.52 a.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: This proposed new Clause is really, as has been pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) and others,
a matter of very great importance. It would give to the local authorities a new power to enter upon private property for the purpose of putting a road right, and we have to decide that definite principle one way or the other when we are considering whether this Clause should be accepted or not. It may not be a new principle, but at any rate it is new as regards its insertion in this Bill, and it ought to have been dealt with at its proper stage of the proceedings.
I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question. Every one of us is agreed that a great traffic problem is raised by the Clause, namely, the problem of the breaking up of roads and streets. If anything is common knowledge in this country, it is that there is a tremendous lack of co-ordination between the people who break up streets. I am sure it is not the fault of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour), who has acknowledged that he has broken up hundreds of thousands of miles of streets, or whatever the figure may be, but who is always anxious to help everybody. This is a problem which the Minister of Transport is trying to solve. I look upon the Clause not only from the point of view of whether it is giving a new right to the local authority, but from the point of view of whether it is going to help the Minister of Transport, the local authorities, and other people to get over the really abominable state of affairs in which you see, when a street has been broken up and put back at great expense, the Post Office or some other authority coming along shortly afterwards and doing it all over again. It is a huge inconvenience to traffic, and an appalling, ghastly waste of public money, and I want the Minister to explain whether this Clause would help him out of that difficulty. Obviously he has looked into it from that point of view, because it is one of the major problems of his Department. I raise the question because it is only very rarely that we get a chance of going into the matter, and it is relevant to this Clause.
We cannot pass a Clause which is going to make confusion worse, and I think the House is justified in expecting the Minister to give a clear definition as to how his own Department would work out this problem of the lack of co-ordination in the breaking up of streets and its con-
nection with the traffic problems of the day. If the Minister could give a satisfactory explanation, we might perhaps accept the Clause. It is a pity that on a new Clause of this kind neither the promoter of the Bill nor my hon. Friends who have moved the Clause should have said one word about helping the public out of the very great difficulty to which I have been referring.

11.54 a.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Before the Minister gives us his advice, I should like to ask another question. Those of us who are accustomed to local government administration will know the situation that arises in connection with the Private Street Works Act. A street which is occupied by private owners remains for some time in a more or less derelict condition. Then the local authority steps in and says that the street must be put in order, and applies the Private Street Works Act, after giving the appropriate notices. When that has been done, the local authority has the right to recoup itself from the local owners for the expense that it has incurred in putting the street in order. What would be the effect of this Clause on that situation? As I understand it, the Clause would give the local authority power, after a street had been dug up, to put it back into the condition in which the undertaker found it, but in that situation would the local authority have the right to recoup itself for any expense that it had occurred in the matter? That question was put to the promoter of the Bill, but I did not gather that he replied to it, and I should be very glad to know what precisely is the position in that regard, and whether the local authority, once it has stepped in and undertaken this work, would be committed thereafter to maintaining the road in proper repair.

11.55 a.m.

Mr. THORP: This provision is not designed to enable the local authority itself to put the street in order, but to enable the local authority to take proceedings and compel the undertaker to put it into repair. It would not involve, when the road was made up as it should have been, that it is taken over by the local authority in exactly the same condition as it was before, but the local authority would be in a position under the Public Health Acts to take it over
and give the necessary notice to make it up.

11.56 a.m.

Lieut. Colonel HEADLAM: This Clause is the result of a good deal of discussion that took place in Committee, when the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. G. Peto) and others considered that private persons would be put at a disadvantage when dealing with electricity undertakings. The kind of road in contemplation is a new road where development is going on and an electrical installation is being put up. The hon. Member for Bilston pictured large pits dug in front of the houses and the undertakers not filling them up satisfactorily, or leaving bumps on the ground. I was very anxious to see that that kind of thing should be stopped. The Clause merely enables a private individual to have the assistance of the local authority in forcing the undertakers to reinstate the road in a satisfactory way. I do not think the provision is at all dangerous to anyone; indeed, on the whole it is a useful addition to the Bill and is in the interest of consumers generally, and I recommend the House to accept it.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer my question whether it helps in the co-ordination of the various people who have power to dig up streets?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on the Clause at all.

11.58 a.m.

Mr. DENMAN: In all this Debate we have not yet had a single example of

the need for the Clause. If it is common knowledge, it must be extremely easy to produce cases of need. One hon. Member has said that in all his large experience he has never known the least difficulty to arise and, if the undertakers do not do their duty, the householders can compel them to do it. Before we pass this Clause we ought to know if there is a case for altering the general law on the ground that grievance has actually arisen. The Clause is in no way confined to undertakers within the scope of the Bill. I suppose it will also refer to gas undertakings. Is there any case in the long experience of gas undertakings in which there has been need for a local authority to intervene, and is it appropriate that in an electricity supply Bill the law should altered relating to gas undertakings. To me as a layman it seems a very doubtful point, and I am merely asking for information.

12 n.

Mr. SPENS: The Minister says it is intended to give the local authority power to force the undertakers to do the work, but the Act of 1847 does nothing of the kind. Section 12 of that Act allows the private owners of the frontage to cause the work omitted to be done to be executed, the expenses of executing the same to be repaid to such persons by the undertakers. This Clause, if passed, authorises the local authority to go in and do the work and gives them a right of action against the undertaker.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided : Ayes, 76; Noes, 35.

Division No. 237.]
AYES
[12.1 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Banfield, John William
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McGovern, John


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maitland, Adam


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Cape, Thomas
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Carver, Major William H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Clarke, Frank
Hepworth, Joseph
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Howard, Tom Forrest
North, Edward T.


Cooke, Douglas
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Crossley, A. C.
Hums, Sir George Hopwood
Penny, Sir George


Daggar, George
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Ker, J. Campbell
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Dobbie, William
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Edwards, Charles
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ray, Sir William


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Logan, David Gilbert
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Rickards, George William


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Selley, Harry R.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)



Sutcliffe, Harold
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Wilton, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)
Mr. Geoffrey Peto and Mr. A. C.


Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Womersley, Walter James
Reed.


Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
West, F. R.



NOES.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Scone, Lord


Broadbent, Colonel John
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Magnay, Thomas
Tate, Mavis Constance


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Morrison, William Shephard
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Emmott, Charles E. Q. C.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Remer, John R.



Grimston, R. V.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES-


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Mr. Spens and Mr. Herbert


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Williams.

12.9 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 2, after the word "shall," to insert:
if requested by the persons or a majority of the persons having control of the street.
My objection to the new Clause is that it will give the local authority the right against the wishes of the inhabitants to interfere with the way in which the street is to be reinstated after it has been excavated by the authorised undertaker, but, if these words are inserted, the rights of inhabitants in the street, who are the persons having control of the street, will be protected. I think that the purpose of the Amendment is perfectly clear, and I therefore merely desire to move it.

Sir J. LAMB: I beg to second the Amendment.

12.10 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I do not quite understand the Amendment,
requested by the persons or a majority of the persons.
There must be a majority of the persons in the first instance. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I cannot conceive a street of less than three houses involved in a case of this kind, and I think that the wording of the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman is unnecessary.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I can give cases where whole streets belong to one or two persons, and, as there may be difficulties, I have tried to cover every conceivable case by my wording.

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Gentleman has in mind, therefore, the ownership of a street by one individual, or a street where each house is owned by the individual tenant. I can see the point, but I have one doubt about the Amendment. The owner of a whole street may not be in tune with the wishes of his tenants and he may be a shareholder in the private electricity undertaking. Consequently, the tenants might always be having the street ripped up and never repaired merely because the owner of the houses was in league with the private electricity undertaking. As I have said on previous occasions, I am instinctively opposed to everything which emanates from the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). On this occasion, too, I feel that my instinct is correct, and I think that the movers of the new Clause ought to oppose the Amendment for the reasons I have given.

12.11 p.m.

Mr. G. PETO: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) will not press this Amendment, because, Mr. Speaker, you have already pointed out that an enormous number of Amendments have been put down on the Paper, and, if we have manuscript Amendments, it will only make a mess of the whole Bill, and we want to see the Bill passed in an effective form. The Amendment does not really make sense. The Clause says that "The authority who would be responsible … shall have the like rights", and the manuscript Amendment says, if requested by a majority of the inhabitants. You either have the rights, or you have not.

12.12 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: The Amendment which has just been moved appears to be in direct contradiction of the statement made by the Minister. He was prepared to accept the Clause, because it gave him some control to see that the road was put back into something like its pre-disturbed state. Here the Minister will have no control at all. The road will be left in a bad state after it has been ripped up. I hope that the Minister will definitely oppose the manuscript Amendment.

12.13 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I cannot say that what my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has said is in direct conflict with what I said, because I think the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams) misunderstood my remarks. This does not refer to the Minister at all. However, I do not think that this Amendment is required. Indeed, I think that it is wrong and will not improve the Clause at all. The frontagers may own the street, and it might well be that a street in part construction would not get repaired at all in such circumstances. I can imagine a case where there might be two houses on a new road, and it would be very difficult to get a majority to go to the local authority. It might be a very difficult problem. I honestly think that the words are not required, and personally I shall vote against them if the Amendment is forced to a Division.

12.14 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I think that the words are very much required. I have often found that if the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway says that a thing is wrong, it is invariably right. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) really proposes to give some sort of power to the inhabitants of the street, but the Amendment ought perhaps to be re-worded so as to include "inhabitants or owner." That alteration, however, can be made in another place. The idea at the back of the Amendment is that, where the majority of the people in a part of the street which is disturbed wish the distubance to be put right, they can make a direct appeal under the Clause. Surely that is only fair. The Amendment clearly points out that these people
should have this right in regard to the street which they use more than anyone else. Naturally there is a bitter attack on it by my hon. Friends here, because they think that it is doing something to help private enterprise and private individuals.
The Amendment is perfectly good commonsense, and is in perfectly good form so far as one can tell, and I ask Members on this occasion not to be guided by the Minister, who, I think, has hastily come to a conclusion without proper consideration. I know that there are many Amendments which I find it difficult to follow, and I am sure that with his greater skill he must have smaller difficulties where I have very great ones. It is absolutely essential that we should have something in the Bill to show people that they have this definite right. For that reason I hope that my hon. Friends opposite will support the Amendment. I shall certainly vote for it in the Division Lobby. It can be easily adjusted in another place if the wording is not exactly what it ought to be.

12.17 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I think that the Amendment is not only unnecessary but dangerous to private individuals, whose rights the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is so anxious to safeguard. Let me give a case which may arise, and, in fact, arises almost any day. A number of plots are sold in a private street, and, it may be, half a dozen houses are built at one end. The other plots are not built upon until some years afterwards, and the result is that these half dozen people cannot get the street in front of their houses put right, because the other people have no interest in it. Consequently they have to wait many years until the remainder of the street is made up. Even from the point of view of private enterprise, the hon. Members for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) are entirely wrong. Let me say, as one who prefers public enterprise to private enterprise, that I myself am a private owner. [HON. MEMBBBS : "Shame!"] I may say that my house is still heavily mortgaged, and in any case I have the interest, which anyone has, of the ordinary owner or part-owner of a house.

12.19 p.m.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: The hon. Member on the Front bench opposite expressed some doubt as to whether you could visualise a street with only two or three houses. I happen to be the owner, with one other person, of a private road. For my part, I certainly do not wish to invoke the aid of the local authority. I feel that these words will give some limited protection, and restore the position in which we desire to find ourselves.

12.20 p.m.

Mr. THORP: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) will not persist in this Amendment, which, I think, is put forward under a misapprehension. In the case of two owners in a street this Clause would never be brought into operation, because they could exercise their rights under the Gasworks Clauses Act. It is only where there are a comparatively large number of owners that this would be put into operation. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is extremely anxious that there should be some body which would have some form of control over people who can open streets and not restore them to the condition in which they were before. He thinks that there should be a sort of private Parliament held in every street and a vote taken, ayes one way and noes the other, in order to ascertain

whether the local authority should be authorised to take proceedings. Of course, in a case where there were only one or two owners, it would be a very simple matter for them—

Mr. G. BALFOUR: Where is the dividing line?

12.22 p.m.

Mr. SPENS: Under the present law a street is torn up by a supply company, who put it back, and the people in the street are perfectly satisfied with the state in which it is put back. Along comes the surveyor of the local authority and says that they do not like it, and, under the Clause, that gives the local authority, without any reference to one, a dozen or 5,000 people in the street, the right themselves to do a whole lot of extra work and then sue the private supply undertaking for the cost of it. That is what we want to guard against, and it is necessary that the right given by this Clause should be limited, so that the local authority would not be allowed to incur that expenditure both to the supply undertaking, and also, probably, to the rates, unless a majority of the frontagers in the street say that they are not satisfied with the work of the supply undertaking, and request the local authority to exercise its powers.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Clause."

The House divided : Ayes, 65; Noes, 59.

Division No. 238.]
AYES.
[12.24 p.m.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Remer, John R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rickards, George William


Bottom, A. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Carver, Major William H.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Scone, Lord


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Strauss, Edward A.


Eales, John Frederick
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Summersby, Charles H.


Eillston, Captain George Sampson
Magnay, Thomas
Tate, Mavis Constance


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Maitland, Adam
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Moss, Captain H. J.
Withers, Sir John James


Gluckstein, Louie Halle
North, Edward T.



Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grimston, R. V.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Mr. Herbert Williams and Mr. Spent.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ray, Sir William



NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Cape, Thomas


Banfield, John William
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofrie


Batey, Joseph
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Clarke, Frank


Cooke, Douglas
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Cove, William Q.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Selley, Harry R.


Crossley, A. C.
Lawson, John James
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Dagger, George
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Dickie, John P.
McGovern, John
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dobbie, William
Mainwaring, William Henry
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Edwards, Charles
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. It.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Horsing, Adrian C.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wilmot, John


Groves, Thomas E.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hortf'd)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Womersley, Walter James


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Penny, Sir George
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)



Howard, Tom Forrest
Procter, Major Henry Adam
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Mr. A. C. Reed and Mr. Geoffrey


Hums, Sir George Hopwood
Runge, Norah Cecil
Peto.


Motion made, and Question, "That the proposed Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: On a point of Order. In view of the very heavy defeat of the promoters of the Bill on a very fundamental principle, I should like to ask what is their position now.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is hardly a point of Order.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Cutting off of electricity supply.)

If the undertakers cut off or disconnect the supply of electricity to any premises and do not subsequently prove any contravention by the consumer of any Act, order, regulation or bye-law which would entitle them to cut off or disconnect the supply, the undertakers shall refund to the consumer any expenses or loss he may have incurred owing to such cutting off or disconnection.—[Mr. G. Peto.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

12.32 p.m.

Mr. G. PETO: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause was discussed in Committee. The Chairman said:
It could be a new Clause. I do not think that this is the appropriate place for it. It has all the makings of a new Clause. I am not prepared, however, to say that it cannot be moved here—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 10th April, 1934; col. 74.]

It was moved and carried as an Amendment, without a Division, but I agree with the chairman and the promoters of the Bill that it would be better as a new Clause, and that is the reason why I am moving it. We are here trying to protect the consumers, just as certain hon. Members are trying to protect the consumers from the other Bill. The Clause means that if an electric supply company, believing that a consumer is using
electricity improperly, disconnects the supply of electricity and it turns out that there is no ground for the suspicion, it is only reasonable that the consumer should be compensated for the loss and damage sustained by the supply being cut off. I think every hon Member will agree that that is fair.

12.34 p.m.

Mr. CHORLTON: I beg to second the Motion.
It is only in keeping with what has been done in another part of the Bill by an Amendment in Committee. It is only reasonable and it follows out the decision of the Committee in that case. I suppose the hon. Member opposite, below the Gangway, who has been speaking so much on the Bill will follow with another speech. If he appreciates the value of this Amendment I am sure that he will be filled with admiration. I should like to make a kindly reference to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). I suppose he will follow. I can tell him that on this occasion my confidence in the new Clause is complete.

12.36 p.m.

Mr. THORP: I hope hon. Members will not persist in this proposal. They are again unduly anxious that the interests of consumers should be protected. At the present moment if an electricity supply undertaking is proved to have acted in excess of its authority and cut off the supply it is liable for damages. The new Clause is, therefore, absolutely unnecessary, and is only designed to throw the burden of proof on electricity undertakings in order to justify their action in cutting off the supply. If they did so and proceedings were taken against them the only thing the consumer would have £o prove under the new Clause would be that in fact the supply had
been cut off, and the burden of proof would be on the undertakers to prove that they were justified in cutting off the supply.

12.37 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I must take notice of what the hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) has said and come to his support on this occasion. I think my hon. Friends have made out a thoroughly good case for the insertion of these words. They are in the interests of consumers, and they also do something to clarify the Bill. It should have been done in Committee upstairs and not left to the House to put this new Clause in. I hope the proposal will be pressed to a Division, and I feel sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who is always looking after the interests of consumers, will give the proposal his support. I would also appeal to hon. Members who talk about the consumers and never do anything for them, Members of the Labour party, to give us their support on this occasion.

12.38 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I was very surprised at the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) in refusing to accept the new Clause. Let me give him a possible case that may arise in order to show why the proposal should be accepted. Suppose there is a large and wealthy electricity undertaking and the officials take unkindly to a small co-operative society. Hon. Members laugh at the supposition, but let me tell them that worse things than that have happened to the co-operative movement. But suppose it is the case of a man owning a small factory and there is a big electricity undertaking, the officials of which take unkindly to the owner of the small factory. Does the hon. and learned Member suggest that if the electricity supply of the small man is cut off by the big firm, and it is found later on to have been done without any reason, that the small man must go to the court and prove his case against the giant? If that is the law now then the law ought to be altered.

Mr. THORP: The law is the same for the poor man and the rich man.

Mr. DAVIES: Except that the rich man can buy the best brains to argue his case, whereas the poor man cannot.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: The hon. Member knows that under the Poor Persons Procedure Act the poor man can get the best advice, solicitors and counsel, for nothing at all.

Mr. DAVIES: I was on the special committee appointed by Parliament to in quire and report on that subject, and although I know very little about the law I do know something about that. I can not agree with the statement which the hon. Member has made. The poor of this country cannot—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think enough has been said on that subject.

Mr. DAVIES: I want to ask the hon. Member who has moved the new Clause and those who support him, to go into the Division lobby in support of the proposal. This is a private Members Bill and although I am speaking on my own behalf, I believe that I am justified in saying that the whole of the Parliamentary Labour party will follow into the Division lobby in support of it.

12.42 p.m.

Sir GEORGE HUME: It is quite right that we should think of the interests of the consumers, but we must not overlook the other side of this question. A consumer may run great risks and dangers, he may also endanger his neighbours, because his electricity supply is defective in some way or another. We must have a balance in this matter, and while we must consider the interests of the consumer we must also consider his interests in another way and if he is obstinate or difficult he should not be able to damage himself or his neighbours. If an undertaking exceeds its powers or acts unreasonably there is a provision in the law to meet the case, but if it acts within its powers and has reasonable cause to think that damage or danger may be incurred an undertaking should have the right to act.

12.44 p.m.

Mr. MAGNAY: I rise to support the proposal which is in the interests of consumers of electricity. They should be safeguarded. The promoters of the Bill, it may be unintentionally, have loaded
the dice against the consumer. If hon. Members will look at Clause 17 they will see in regard to meter rents that in the case of an allowance that has to be paid by a consumer on a surcharge the undertakers are to have the right to recover it in the same manner as charges for electricity are recovered. There is not a word about the poor consumer. He may go to the gas company, or anywhere else, or elsewhere, even to uncovenanted darkness. The movers of the new Clause are well advised and every bon. Member ought to support it.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I am certain that if hon. Members will carefully read the new Clause they will realise how reasonable it is. It reads as follows:
Unless otherwise agreed the undertakers shall, at their own expense, carry out the necessary alterations to consumers' existing apparatus to suit any altered system or pressure of the supply or pay to each consumer injuriously affected by

Mr. H. WILLIAM: You are reading the wrong Clause.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: What I was about to say applies to the Clause which I should have read. It is as follows:
If the undertakers cut off or disconnect the supply of electricity to any premises and do not subsequently prove any contravention by the consumer of any Act, order, regulation or bye-law which would entitle them to cut off or disconnect the supply, the undertakers shall refund to the consumer any expenses or loss he may have incurred owing to such cutting off or disconnection.
As a matter of justice, if the consumer is put to inconvenience the undertaker should make up any deficit or expenditure that may be incurred thereby. The point has already been put that the consumer could never hope to be in the same position as the undertaker in prosecuting any claim. The undertakers have at all times at their disposal legal gentlemen who are able to render assistance upon the interpretation of any Act of Parliament. The ordinary consumer will always be at a disadvantage.

12.47 p.m.

Major PROCTER: The purpose of the new Clause is to secure for the consumer justice and compensation for expenditure that may be incurred owing to the cutting off of an electric supply. Would supporters of the new Clause look at
page 4, line 10, of the Bill, where they will find these words :
If there is found to be no such contravention the undertakers shall refund to the consumer any expenses or loss he may have incurred owing to the cutting off or disconnection of the supply of electricity to the premises.
That is equivalent to what is proposed in this new Clause.

Mr. G. PETO: Perhaps the hon. Member was not in the House when I moved the Second Reading of the new Clause, which is to take the place of those words which he has read. The promoters have an Amendment on the Paper to omit lines 11 to 14 which the hon. Member has quoted.

12.49 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Honestly, I do not think the House is being treated fairly this morning. Several of the speeches have implied that this new Clause is needed to give to the consumer a protection that he does not enjoy at present. It was not upstairs that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) thought that this might have been done. It was done as long ago as 1899. The Electric Lighting Clauses Act of that year, in Section 30, gives more protection than this new Clause, because it provides incidentally that in addition to doing what is necessary to restore a supply there shall be a penalty of 40s. a day for default in giving supply. That is something which has been working for 35 years without complaint from anyone. But to-day the same idea is brought in as novel and a great many totally unnecessary speeches have been made upon it.

Mr. PETO: In the case of the cutting off of electricity supply for a whole works is 40s. a day an adequate penalty?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: This has been the law for 35 years, and there has been no single complaint brought forward. Those who have moved this new Clause were not aware of the existing law, because not one single speech has indicated any knowledge of it. It is not respectful to bring forward Amendments which entirely ignore the existing law, and I do not think that the time of the House should be wasted in such a way.

12.52 p.m.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon
(Mr. H. Williams) has just said. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to jeer when I make such a statement. The law to-day is perfectly clear as to the right of consumers to full protection. This new Clause is only another illustration of the impossibility of legislating on serious matters of this kind in a Debate of this nature, without ample time being given to the full exploration of the Acts in existence and of the Bill which it is proposed to put on the Statute Book. I have no objection whatever to this Bill providing for these minor matters, but I do feel that we ought to be careful in scrutinising the wording of each Clause so that it will not prove an embarrassment either to the consumer or to the undertaker in future. This Clause definitely is unnecessary and will not afford any more protection to the consumer than if it were left out of the Bill. The promoters might say that that is a very good reason

for putting it in. I take the opposite view. It is the confusion caused by unnecessary Clauses that provides the greater portion of the income of the lawyers. I shall certainly vote against the Clause.

Mr. PETO: Does the hon. Gentleman think that 40s. a day fine is adequate compensation for the closing down of vast works by the cutting-off of the electricity supply?

Mr. BALFOUR: Forty shillings a day is the penalty, but the consumers have full rights under the common law, and it is on record that substantial damages have been awarded where it has been proved that consumers were unfairly treated or that the supply was unfairly cut off.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided : Ayes, 47; Noes, 88.

Division No. 239.]
AYES.
[12.54 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Selley, Harry R


Banfield, John William
Griffith, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Groves, Thomas E.
Summersby, Charles H.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Thorns, William James


Brawn, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Cape, Thomas
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
West, F. R.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Cove, William G.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ines)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
McGovern, John
Wilmot, John


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Magnay, Thomas
Womersley, Walter James


Dobbie, William
Mainwaring, William Henry
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Eales, John Frederick
Moreing, Adrian C.



Edwards, Charles
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Mr. Geoffrey Peto and Mr. A. C.


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Reed.


NOES.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Maitland, Adam


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grimston, R. V.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bernays, Robert
Hacking, Rt. Han. Douglas H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Bossom, A. C.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Moss, Captain H. J.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
North, Edward T.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Penny, Sir George


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Clarke, Frank
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cooke, Douglas
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Crossley, A. C.
Ker, J. Campbell
Romer, John R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rickards, George William


Dickie, John P.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ropner, Colonel L.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lovat-Frasar, James Alexander
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mac Andrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Strauss, Edward A.
Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Scant, Lord
Sutcliffe, Harold
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Somerville, Annuity A. (Windsor)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Withers, Sir John James


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)



Spens, William Patrick
Williams, Charles (Davon, Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Thorp and Mrs. Tate.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Change of system or pressure.)

(1) Unless otherwise agreed the undertakers shall, at their own expense, carry out the necessary alterations to consumers' existing apparatus to suit any altered system or pressure of the supply or pay to each consumer injuriously affected by the alteration of system or pressure such sum as may he agreed upon or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed on the application of either party by the Minister of Transport as the reasonable cost of, and incidental to, the change of system or pressure (including compensation for any loss or damage incurred in consequence of the alteration), and upon such appointment being made the reference to the arbitrator shall be deemed to be a reference to a single arbitrator under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889.

(2) Provided that in any case where notice of their intention to carry out the aforesaid necessary alterations is served by the undertakers on a consumer not less than one month and not more than six months prior to the date fixed by the undertakers for carrying out the said alterations, no liability shall attach to the undertakers in respect of apparatus installed by the consumer after the service of such notice unless otherwise agreed between the undertakers and the consumer and a condition to this effect shall be clearly stated in any such notice as aforesaid.

(3) The undertakers shall send a copy of this section to each consumer at the same time as they send the notice of their intention to change the system or pressure.—[Mr. G. Peto.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

1.3 p.m.

Mr. G. PETO: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This New Clause is proposed in place of Clause 19 now in the Bill which I understand the undertakers are not prepared to accept. On behalf of the consumer I hope that they will be able to accept the New Clause. Under the existing law and the regulations of the Electricity Commissioners undertakers may not change the system or pressure of a supply without the authority and licence of the Commissioners and when the Commissioners give their consent they impose certain conditions. This Clause repeats those conditions as far as Sub-sections (1) and (2) are concerned but Sub-section (3) introduces a condition
which is most important to consumers. Consumers ought to know what their rights are when a change-over of this kind is made in the system or pressure and at present the consumer in many cases is not aware of the fact that he has power to recover from the undertaker the cost of replacement of a wireless apparatus, fittings and so on, if the change-over necessitates such replacement.
The other day I was sent a notice by a supply company with regard to a change over from direct to alternating current. The notice simply stated that a supply of electrical energy would be given by direct current for wireless apparatus on special terms and conditions as shown in a separate leaflet. The separate leaflet stated that a direct current wireless apparatus must be connected with a separate circuit—which is expensive—that it was necessary to hire a meter at a rental of one guinea a year and that the charge would be 6d. per unit for the supply of electricity—although the same company supplies current for lighting in normal circumstances at prices ranging from 3¾d. to 4½d. per unit and for power purposes at 1d. per unit. Far from telling the consumer that he had the right to have his wireless apparatus replaced free of charge they only tell him that he has to pay a higher charge for the electricity, as well as the rental of the meter and the cost of connecting up with a separate circuit.
I would like the Minister to tell the House whether supply companies have the power to enforce conditions of that kind. If they have that power, it seems to me to be directly in contradiction to the conditions under which the Electricity Commissioners grant the licence. At any rate, my point is that such rights as the Commissioners confer upon the consumers should be made known to the consumers. It is impossible for individual consumers to study a notice in small type which appears once for all in a local newspaper, probably months before they know anything about the change over. At the time of the change-over, when the consumer is notified of it, he
should also be notified of his rights as provided in the regulations issued by the Electricity Commissioners.

1.6 p.m.

Mr. ARTHUR REED: I beg to second the Motion.
The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) referred to the Act of 1899, but since then conditions have altered enormously. We now have the Central Electricity Commissioners spreading their tentacles all over the country, and eventually it will become a monopoly, and this Bill tends to give everything to the undertaker and to take away many of the rights of the consumer. I have known many cases myself where the periodicity or voltage has been altered and consumers have been asked to pay something towards the alteration of their motors or apparatus.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: No.

Mr. REED: It is so, but in any case there is no harm in this new Clause, because the first two sub-sections of it are definitely the instructions of the Central Electricity Commissioners, and our idea is to have them in the Bill, so that they shall be sent to the consumers, who will then know what their powers are in the matter.

1.8 p.m.

Mr. THORP: The hon. Members who have moved and seconded this Clause would appear not to be familiar with the fact that the Electricity Commissioners always insist upon a similar kind of undertaking before they authorise the voltage to be changed, but as the hon. Members wish to have it in the Bill, I think there is no objection to it, except that there is this disadvantage, that the Commissioners may think they would have insisted upon even more rights to the consumer than those contained in the Bill. Nevertheless, as the hon. Members wish to have it, I see no objection to it if the House agrees to its insertion.

1.9 p.m.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I understand the anxiety of the hon. Members who support this new Clause, but I can assure them that they are under an entire misapprehension. Years ago my own premises were changed over by the municipal authority, who were the suppliers, and notice was served in the ordinary
way. They inspected all the apparatus and changed it over. I have served notices in a large number of cases where a change has been made, and everyone of the premises has been visited and inspected, and there has been no trouble. Perhaps confusion arises where a change is made at the same pressure, where there is only lighting in the house, from direct current to alternating current, and the question of wireless apparatus arises. I think that is the only case in which there might be a cause of grievance, but to alter the general Statute with such far-reaching effects in order to overcome such a possible defect would be, in my opinion, a grave mistake.
Even any difficulty arising in that connection is very fully covered, because, in the first instance, no supply authority has any right to make any change, once it has declared its system and its pressure, which would involve any expense whatever to the consumer. That is the position at the present time, and we have been at great pains in recent years to set up administrative machinery, namely, the Electricity Commissioners, to deal with a great many of these points. Now it seems that we are going to re verse that operation, take away from the Commissioners many of their rights and proper functions, and insert those functions in a Bill, and I suggest that it will be doing a grave disservice to the consumers if we do anything of the kind, because under the regulations affecting these questions hon. Members will find that there is ample provision made for the protection of wireless and all other apparatus on consumers' premises. In the case mentioned by my hon. Friend opposite, in which the consumer had to pay part of the cost—

Mr. G. PETO: I read out an actual notice.

Mr. BALFOUR: I was referring to the other hon. Member, who mentioned a case where a consumer had to pay part of the cost of changing an apparatus.

Mr. REED: He did not pay, because he happened to know the law, but he was asked to pay.

Mr. BALFOUR: Even so. I agree that there may be cases where people pay, but the only case, I think, in which they are under any legal liability to pay is
where, by agreement, and by agreement only, a man perhaps has a very old 10-horse-power motor and, owing to in creased activity, wants a 20-horse-power motor, and he agrees to pay the agreed difference in value, which is good value to himself. Except for such the consumer is under no liability in law to incur any expense in relation to a change of periodicity or pressure, and if any doubt arises, he is amply covered under the regulations laid down by the Electricity Commissioners. In the interests of the consumer, therefore, I would press my hon. Friends not to pursue this Clause.

1.13 p.m.

Mr. CAPORN: I rise to support my hon. Friends who ask for the inclusion of this Clause. I agree that the consumer is amply covered by the present state of the law, but the trouble is that the consumer does not know it, and unfortunately some electricity undertakers persistently take advantage of the fact that the consumer does not know the law. I believe that that is being done with great persistency as regards wireless apparatus, and that they regularly endeavour to persuade and advise consumers that as regards wireless apparatus they, the undertakers, are not bound to pay for the cost of conversion. I suggest that the part of this new Clause that would be really useful to the consumers is that which is set out in Sub-section (3), namely, that the undertakers shall send a copy of the existing law to the consumer at the same time as they send notice of their intention to change the system or pressure. If my hon. Friends could see their way to omit the first two Sub sections of the Clause, which I believe are rather dangerous, because they restrict the existing rights and powers of the Electricity Commissioners, and would stick to the third Sub-section only, I think it would be helping the consumers better than by insisting upon the whole Clause.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: The statement has been made that plant and fittings have been made obsolete owing to the change from continuous to alternating current and that consumers are not compensated. I have known cases where fittings have been made obsolete owing to this change
and the owners have certainly received no compensation whatever. In the main, I am inclined to agree with the Bill, but I support those who, in putting forward this new Clause, think that the consumer is at a great disadvantage in not being aware of his rights under the law. I knew a man who had no sleep for weeks because he feared what would happen when the change was made from continuous to alternating current, although, if he had known his legal rights, he need have had no fear.

1.16 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I appreciate the desire of hon. Members to safeguard the interests of the consumers in this matter, for it is obvious that the consumer should not be harassed in the way it is suggested he has been harassed in the past. The first two Sub-sections of the proposed Clause take the form of an extract from the conditions that the Electricity Commissioners attach to their formal consent to undertakers when they change their system of pressure. These conditions have been adopted since the Commissioners came into existence in 1920 and are in conformity with the conditions attached by the Board of Trade prior to that date. There is a difference, I think, between putting these conditions definitely in an Act of Parliament and leaving them as they are at present. To put them in the Bill would tie the hands of the Commissioners and might not be altogether satisfactory. Under the Commissioners' regulations they have full discretion as to what, if any, conditions they will attach in a particular case. Under the proposed new Clause they would be definitely tied down.
I am not an expert in electricity, but there are a great many experts in the House, and I suggest that in an industry such as the electrical industry, where changes are taking place continually, it is very difficult to state that these conditions, which are applicable at the present time, will always be applicable in future. Modifications may be necessary in the interests either of the consumers or of the undertakers, and it would be a mistake to set out these conditions definitely in an Act of Parliament. I think that the real point that my hon. Friend has in mind is summed up in Sub-section (3) of the new Clause, and I can definitely state that to meet
that point the Commissioners are prepared to give an undertaking that in all future consents they will make a condition that undertakers, in addition to the notice published in the local Press, must notify each individual consumer affected by the change over of his rights under the conditions. I think that that assurance should be sufficient to satisfy all anxiety about the consumers knowing the rights which they possess.

Mr. G. PETO: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that that only applies to supply undertakings which make the change over in future? The vast majority of them, I imagine, have already received their authority to change over from direct to alternating current, and their consumers are helpless. Otherwise, I welcome the suggestion.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Obviously, notice cannot be given in the past, and this will only apply to future notices.

1.21p.m.

Sir J. LAMB: The Parliamentary Secretary has suggested that Sub-sections (1) and (2) of the proposed new Clause would tie down the Commissioners in making regulations in future. Unless we supersede the present Acts by repealing them, I do not think it will do anything to tie them down. If these Sub-sections are only extracts of existing regulations, their insertion in the Bill cannot tie them down. With regard to Sub-section (3), if, as appears from the undertaking of the Commissioners which has been given by the Parliamentary Secretary, there is agreement that something should be done to let the consumers know their rights, there can be no harm in putting it in the Bill.

1.22 p.m.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: The Minister's reply is inadequate. It is not sufficient to have only Sub-section (3) of the proposed Clause; the consumer should be told what the law is. I have a case in my town where men were rendered permanently idle because a consumer was not aware of his rights under the law. He set up a small electrical welding works and obtained substantial contracts for

making iron gates. Ultimately, the pressure was changed, and he got prices for unwinding a transformer and things of that kind. He was faced with great expense, not knowing the law, and had to dispense with his business. The man worried so much until ultimately he was faced with liquidation. Consumers are not aware of the law in this matter, and I am glad that the promoters of the Bill are moving to put this Clause in.

1.24 p.m.

Mr. CHORLTON: Is not there a real risk which the Minister has not foreseen if we take out Sub-section (1) and (2) and leave only Sub-section (3)? If the first two Sub-sections are only regulations of the Commissioners and are not put in the Bill, they may be altered by them. As the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) pointed out, we should have them in black and white in the Bill. It will be a grave risk if we do not put them in, and it will nullify Sub-section (3), for these regulations might be changed so that they will not be the protection to the consumer that we want them to be. I submit, therefore, that it will be better to accept the new Clause as it stands.

1.25 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think the Clause would be undesirable, because as the industry changes it is necessary to have the power to issue new regulations. It has been decided by Parliament that that matter should be left in the hands of the Electricity Commissioners, whose object it is to develop the supply of electricity throughout the country and they are therefore just as much concerned with the interests of consumers as of the undertakers. Obviously if the industry is to develop it must be run on lines which are satisfactory to those who use electricity. I am only suggesting that it would be well to allow the discretion in this matter to remain with the Commissioners on the undertaking that they inform all consumers of electricity what rights they have.

Question put, "That the Clause he read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 63; Noes, 58.

Division No. 240.]
AYES.
[1.26 p.m.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notte., Mansfield)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Campbell Johnston, Malcolm


Banfield, John William
Broadbent, Colonel John
Cape, Thomas


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Daggar, George
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Summersby, Charles H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Macdonald. Gordon (Ince)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Dickie, John p.
McEntee, Valentine L.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Dobbie, William
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Thorne, William James


Edwards, Charles
Magnay, Thomas
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Moreing, Adrian C.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
North, Edward T.
West, F. R.


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Patrick, Colin M.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Groves, Thomas E.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Wilmot, John


Grundy, Thomas W.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Hales, Harold K.
Rickards, George William



Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Runge, Norah Cecil
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Mr. Geoffrey Peto and Mr. A. C. Reed.


NOES.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Remer, John R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Ker, J. Campbell
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Clarke, Frank
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Cooke, Douglas
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Scone, Lord


Crossley, A. C.
Maitland, Adam
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Spens, William Patrick


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Strauss, Edward A.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Turton, Robert Hugh


Grimston, R. V.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Penny, Sir George
Withers, Sir John James


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Womersley, Walter James


Hartland, George A.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.



Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Mr. Herbert Williams and Sir




Francis Fremantle.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Power to break up private streets.)

1.34 p.m.

Mr. THORP: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out "that" and insert "the".

This Amendment and the two following ones are purely of a drafting nature.

Sir J. LAMB: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 12, leave out "will," and insert "would."

In line 14, leave out "when it becomes," and insert "if it were."—[Mr. Thorp.]

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper :

In page 2, line 21, at the end, to insert:
and shall have the like rights under section twelve of the Gasworks (Clauses)
Act, 1847, as are thereby conferred on the persons having the control or management of the street."—[Mr. Thorp.]

Mr. THORP: In view of the Amendment which has been carried in regard to the powers of local authorities to break up private streets, this Amendment is not necessary, and I do not propose to move it.

1.35 p.m.

Mr. MOREING: I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, to leave out from "by," to the first "or," in line 27, and insert :
any railway company, harbour authority, navigation authority, or conservancy authority.
This is a purely drafting Amendment in order to bring Clause 2 into conformity with Clause 10 and subsequent Clauses, and to enable advantage to be taken of the definition Clause.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MOREING: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out from "undertakers," to "but," in line 29, and to insert
except with, the consent in writing of such company, authority, or undertakers, and subject to such terms and conditions as they may reasonably impose.
This again is of a drafting nature with the object of bringing the words of Sub-section (2) into conformity with the words of Sub-section (3) under which the London County Council is given power to propose certain terms and conditions when they are giving consent. The Amendment will enable railway companies and dock, harbour and canal authorities to have the same right when they have to give consent under the Clause.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Use for lighting purposes of electricity supplied for power.)

1.38 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, to leave out from the beginning, to "shall," in line 13, and to insert :
Where the charges made by any undertakers for electricity supplied by them for one purpose are less than the charges made by them for electricity supplied for another purpose, electricity supplied by the undertakers for the first mentioned purpose shall not, without the consent in writing of the undertakers, be used (whether after transformation or conversion or not) for the last mentioned purpose, and if any person to whom any electricity is supplied uses it or suffers it to be used in contravention of the provisions of this section, he.
I am moving this Amendment and the three following Amendments at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry) who cannot be here to-day. The corporation of Newport have promoted a Bill in another place, and it would have contained a Clause similar in principle to Clause 3 in the present Bill, but Clause 3 contemplates a narrower case than that which prevails in Newport. If a person uses for lighting or other purposes electricity supplied at a rate lower than the lighting rate, such as using the electricity supplied for power, an offence is committed. In Newport, the electricity department charge 1d. per unit for heating, while for domestic power purposes, such as for
electric irons they charge 2½d.; for lighting purposes the charge is higher still. It is possible that what is supplied for heating may be used for domestic power, or for lighting. A greater number of permutations and combinations is possible in that case than are contemplated in Clause 3 as it stands. I am given to understand that the same conditions prevail in a number of other municipalities and power companies. In order that all possible cases may be properly covered, I am moving this Amendment, and the other Amendments will be consequential if it is passed.

Sir J. LAMB: I beg to second the Amendment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

1.41 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: We ought to hear something from the promoters of the Bill. We are entirely in the dark as to why these words were not put in originally.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: This was not contemplated originally. A private Bill promoted in another place drew attention to it, and that is why the provision is introduced at this stage.

Mr. ATTLEE: I want to know whether the promoters of the Bill are friendly to it.

Mr. THORP: If I were not in agreement with the proposal I should have occupied the time of the House in putting forward reasons why I opposed it. I did not bother to get up to state the reasons against it, because I have no reasons.

Mr. ATTLEE: It is usual for hon. Members who are in charge of a Bill to say something about it, because other hon. Members must have light.

Mr. GROVES: Are we to take it that every time the hon. and learned Member says nothing, he means "Yes"?

Mr. THORP: I did not propose to occupy the time of the House in making observations which would have been unnecessary.

Further Amendments made :

In page 3, line 18, after "section" insert :
in respect of the use of electricity for any purpose.
In line 20, leave out :
for purposes other than lighting purposes.
In line 22, leave out from "instituted," to the end of the Clause, and insert :
at a rate of charge lower than the rate of charge appropriate for electricity supplied for the said purpose shall be charged for at the last mentioned rate."—[Mr. H. Williams.]

1.43 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, at the end, to insert:
(4) For the purposes of this section electricity shall not be deemed to be used for lighting purposes by reason only that it is used for the purposes of some electrical apparatus which contains a lamp if the purposes of the apparatus as a whole are not lighting purposes.
I have, first of all, to thank the promoters of the Bill for carrying out their promise to give this Amendment consideration. When we discussed it in Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) expressed agreement with it but said that it was bady drafted, and that he would undertake to see if he could have it drafted properly in time for the Report stage. Hon. Members may be wondering what it is all about. The intention of the Amendment is to put a safeguard in the Bill to avoid future complications. Clause 3 lays down that those who use electricity contrary to the manner intended commit an offence. Beading the evidence submitted to the Select Committee when this Bill was under consideration, I find that Sir Harry Pritchard, when asked what was the position of those who were using electricity for wireless purposes, frankly said that he did not know. On some wireless sets is a light. The object of the Amendment is to prevent an inspector from walking into a house and saying to someone who has a wireless apparatus run from the power plug, "Because you have a light on this wireless set, the electricity that you use is deemed to be for lighting purposes and not for power." In certain parts of the country l¼d. per unit is the charge for electricity used for power, while for lighting the charge is
5½d. or 6d. The House will agree that electricity used for wireless purposes from the power plug, even though there is a light upon the wireless set, ought not to be deemed to be electricity used for lighting. I thing that there is unanimity on that point. The Amendment provides la safeguard in that respect.

Sir J. LAMB: I beg to second the Amendment.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. THORP: I am much indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) for agreeing to postpone this Amendment until the present stage. It carries out exactly what he describes, and will avoid any discussion in future as to whether a particular supply has been provided for lighting or for power purposes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having moved the Amendment, and I hope that the House will accept it.

1.46 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: This question is not quite such an easy one as my hon. and learned Friend appears to think. For all that I know it may be a case of collusion. The Government is represented here to-day by a very able Minister, and we have an Amendment proposed by a Socialist Member and seconded by an hon. Gentleman who apparently thought that discretion was the better part of valour, and accordingly said nothing about it. I am sure he was very wise. The hon. and learned Gentle man, who is so charmingly courteous—

Sir J. LAMB: My wisdom, I think, lay in the fact that I did not consider it necessary to take up the time of the House, and therefore did not do so.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that he, like myself, would never take up the time of the House unnecessarily. My hon. and learned Friend now accepts this Amendment. But I am not here as a follower of this hon. Gentleman or that hon. Gentleman; it is the Government that I am prepared to support, and I think that the Government ought to say what the position is. I understand that the Amendment has something to do with wireless, a most important thing, and I am sure that if we can help in such a
matter every one of us would wish to do so. I should like to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill if I can vote for this particular Amendment with safety. I understand my hon. and gallant Friend to say that he is not in charge, but some one must be in charge on behalf of the Government—

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am not in charge of the Bill; I am here to give advice to my hon. Friend.

Mr. WILLIAMS: My hon. and gallant Friend is here to give advice to any supporter of the Government who thinks that in the main nothing should be done on a private Member's Bill to interfere with the policy of the Government. That is really what I want to decide, and, if my hon. and gallant Friend will assure me either that the Amendment is all right or that he wishes it put aside, I will willingly follow him into the lobby.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I would advise my hon. Friend, if I may, to switch off. I can assure him that from the point of view of all users of this apparatus there is a great deal to be said for the Amendment, and I am not surprised that it is accepted by all parties in the House.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Then we can accept it?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Further powers as to entry upon premises.)

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper :

In page 3, line 39, at the end, insert "by the undertakers."

In page 4, line 1, leave out "whether."

In line 2, leave out "or not."—[Mr. Magnay.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I understand that these three Amendments are really one.

1.50 p.m.

Mr. MAGNAY: I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, at the end, to insert "by the undertakers."
I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for your intimation. I thought that these Amendments might well be taken together, but I suggest that, after I have addressed the House upon them,
it might be the wish of the House to divide on each Amendment separately. That, however, I leave to the House. I move these Amendments on my own motive power, using my own meter—that is to say, my brains—and I have no connection with any other, firm. I was asked to support the Bill, and the town clerk of my borough sent me a copy of a letter which he had received from the Association of Municipal Corporations, advising him and the Corporation to get into touch with me for that purpose. The first thing that I saw in reference to the Bill was that it was introduced at the request of a conference of local authorities owning electricity undertakings in Greater London. That did not interest me much, but my short experience of this House indicates to me that all private Members' Bills ought to be looked at very carefully, and this proposal of local authorities owning electricity undertakings in Greater London is no exception. I am just a little tired of these private Members' days being used for the most part by London constituencies and London Members. I had hardly been here five minutes, as the saying is, when we had something to do for London in regard to the cinemas. They had been breaking the law for three years, and we had to put them right—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It appears to me that the point raised by the hon. Member's Amendments is not a very wide one, and it hardly includes cinemas.

Mr. MAGNAY: As the late Joseph Chamberlain said, I was using that, not as an argument, but as an illustration. I bow to your Ruling. I am glad that this, the last of the litter of London Bills, is being dealt with to-day on the last day for private Members' Bills. Certainly I think that the House of Commons, which is the custodian of the rights of the individual, would not agree to Clause 5, to which I have put down my Amendments. The Clause says:
The powers conferred on undertakers by section twenty-four of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, of entering premises shall be extended.
Having suffered all my life from the gravest malady that can afflict a man, an inquiring mind, I went to the law to find out what Section 24 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882 was, and, for the en-
lightenment of the House, I will read it. It says :
Any person appointed by the undertakers may at all reasonable times enter any premises to which electricity is or has been supplied by the undertakers, in order to inspect electric lines, meters, accumulators, fittings, works and apparatus for the supply of electricity belonging to the undertakers"—
I want to emphasise that—
and for the purpose of ascertaining the quantity of electricity consumed or supplied; or, where the supply of electricity is no longer required or where the undertakers are authorised to take away or cut off the supply of electricity from any premises, for the purpose of removing any electric lines, accumulators, fittings, works or apparatus belonging to the undertakers, repairing all damage caused by such entry, inspection or removal.
I suggest that the powers contained in that Section are wide enough in all conscience for the requirements of Undertakers. Why should they be extended? The we find in Clause 5 of the Bill, paragraph (a), that:
The premises which may be entered shall include all premise" in the area of supply of the undertakers in which electric fittings are being or have been installed.
This is a monstrous thing. I cannot imagine how the Committee overlooked it.
The premises which may be entered shall include all premises in the area of supply of the undertakers in which electric fittings are being or have been installed.
There are Members of the House, including the President of the Board of Trade, who generate their own electricity. Under the Bill, without my Amendment the undertaker will have the right to go to any house inside its area and examine the electric fittings, whether supplied by them or not. I know a man who is a very clever inventor, and I had something to do with the patents that he has taken out to safeguard the fruits of his brains. He generates his own electricity because he wants absolute secrecy and privacy, so as not to have any outsider coming into his premisies without his consent and examining his patent machinery or things that are in the embryo stage. The old feudal rights were very mild compared with the powers suggested to be given to undertakers under this Clause. A new Clause entitled "Application to Crown lands" was brought before the Committee on 12th April. It read:
The provisions of this Act shall apply to land belonging to any Government Department or belonging to any public officer or body on behalf of His Majesty, and for the purpose of the said provisions, the officer having the management of any such land shall represent His Majesty.
This is what the Minister in charge said:
I think that he will find that everybody who is connected with Government Departments is equally opposed to any such proposal. It has been the principle for a very long time that lands belonging to the Crown and in the keeping of Government Departments should be exempt from the exercise of compulsory powers by local authorities or public utility undertakers. It has always been recognised by Parliament, for obvious reasons, that in respect of land set apart for public or national purposes the national interests must prevail over the interests of a purely local character, whether those interests are connected with local administration or with the supply of utilities such as gas, electricity or anything of the kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 12th April, 1934; col. 134.]
On this page of the Order Paper there appears the following Amendment:
The provisions of this section shall not apply to or in respect of any building or premises (not being a dwelling-house) belonging to any railway company, harbour authority, navigation authority, or conservancy authority or tramway, light railway, gas, water or electricity undertakers, and used for the purposes of their undertaking or to any building or premises in the occupation of any local authority (including a county council), or which form part of any premises any part of which is occupied as a factory or workshop to which the Factory and "Workshop Act, 1901, applies.
That is to say, that to Government offices or factories or public utility societies there is no right of entry, but in the case of the Englishman's house, which is supposed to be his castle, John Bull has no rights at all. The Committee have been sound asleep and ought to be jolly well ashamed of themselves. The other night I had some doubt whether I was doing right. [Interruption.] Even Homer nodded, and there are spots on the sun. I had some doubt whether I was doing wisely, being a Liberal of the old school, in voting for the Sedition Bill. But that was for the safeguarding of Government secrets and Government policy. Who cares for John Bull and the ordinary common law rights of seeing that his house is his own? In effect, this Clause is a search warrant without the leave of a justice of the peace. Every Board of Trade or Government inspector is sworn
to observe secrecy in his visits and must not talk about what he sees, but these people, clothed in a little brief authority, have the right to come into your house or mine and say they will do what they like, examine what they like, and go where they like. I protest against this. This is a Bill for the electrical undertakings of greater London. No one on the Committee raised the flag of liberty.
Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
As his corpse to the rampart we hurried.
But I never was more serious in my life. This writ will run not only over greater London but over the North. Greater London may agree to this. The Press are complaining of my remarks about the softness and pliability, to put it mildly, of the Cockney. He is as God made him, and I have no right to judge him. Certainly he is the kindliest of all our people. But I am certain that in the North we think something of liberty.
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
We really think something of this land of liberty. If the House were foolish enough to pass this Clause unamended, I warn them that, if these undertakers came into such a house as mine by the law of the land, they would go out very speedily by the law of gravitation and would probably be the subject of another kind of undertakers. My Amendment, in effect, is to put us where we are in regard to Section 24 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882. Let me again give that Section, because I think the House will agree, after what I have said, that it is quite capable of covering any cases that may have been acquired by the undertakers:
Any person appointed by the undertakers may, at all reasonable times, enter any premises to which electricity is or has been supplied by the undertakers, in order to inspect electric lines, meters, accumulators, fittings, works and apparatus for the supply of electricity belonging to the undertakers, and for the purpose of ascertaining the quantity of electricity consumed or supplied, or where the supply of electricity is no longer required, or where the undertakers are authorised to take away or cut off the supply of electricity from any premises, for the purpose of removing any electric lines, accumulators, fittings, works or apparatus belonging to the undertakers, repairing all damage caused by such entry inspection or removal.

Mr. CAPORN: Will the hon. Member tell the House how those powers can be enforced at the present time if the householder refuses to allow them to enter?

Mr. MAGNAY: It is a very sound axiom in common law that where there is a damage there is a remedy, and he who comes into court of equity must come in with clean hands and hot feet. These are axioms of which my hon. Friend is aware. I appeal to the common sense of the House and to its sense of justice and love of liberty. We are the custodians of the rights of plain John Bull, such another chap as myself. He will not stand any nonsense. He is not going to tolerate any Act of Parliament which overrides the rights of his humanity and the dignity of his manhood.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman rise to second the Amendment?

2.8 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Certainly. I beg to second the Amendment. I have been so deeply moved by the powerful oration which we have heard that I feel compelled to second the Amendment. I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that at last there has been one small voice raised among the few Liberals in the House of Commons on behalf of freedom.

Mr. MAGNAY: Did the hon. Gentleman say "small voice"?

Mr. WILLIAMS: It began as a small voice, and it swelled and grew until it was, after all, a very great sound indeed. And now I hope that I have not caused him offence. I think that it was very fortunate, as I have noticed during the last quarter of an hour that a couple of Liberal Members have drifted on to the Government Front Bench. What is the position of the Amendment? My hon. Friend was stirred to great depths by the word "undertakers," and wanted to cut them out wherever he could. We are always associating Liberals with undertakers. There is a constant demand on the undertakers. The vital Amendment is the leaving out of the words "or not." If you cut out those words, the undertakers cannot come on to the premises, is far as I understand the position. If
the taking out of those words is accepted by the Government or by those in charge of the Bill, they will be doing something to meet the common feeling of the House. Undoubtedly, the hon. Member for Gates head (Mr. Magnay) had the whole House behind him when speaking just now. It was obvious to anyone who listened that the whole House would support him in the same way as I am supporting him now. In passing a Measure of this kind, it is absolutely essential that you should not give these people power to enter the house or factory of the ordinary private individual.
What is the position? My hon. Friend touched upon it lightly. You have a factory where some very important undertaking is being carried on, or some new invention is being worked out, and the inspectors of the undertakers of electricity come along and say, "We want to look at some fittings we put in five years ago." Someone strays in; he may be let in without proper authority. He may discover the whole of the secret and go out again. My hon. Friend who is looking at me so intently will realise that that is possible. But under this Amendment, an inspector cannot enter the factory unless the undertaker can claim to own the actual fittings. It is for that reason that I think the three Amendments as they stand together are sound common sense and will be accepted by the House. I have very great pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead on this occasion, and I hope that he will continue in the good work that he has done this morning, and that he will always do something to protect the man in the factory against any form of interference whether from this country or from abroad.

2.11 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The Amendment is not worthy of the eloquence with which it was proposed. Under the Act of 1882. Section 24, to which the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) referred, the right of entry is granted and, therefore, the question of the Englishman's castle does not arise. That right was taken away before the hon. Member was born.

Mr. MAGNAY: It was long after I was born. I was born in 1876.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I apologise to the hon. Member for underestimating his age.
The right of entry exists where any of the apparatus belongs to the supply authority, whether it is a municipality or a company. The purpose of the Clause as it stands is to enable the supply authority to inspect apparatus to which they are supplying electricity, whether it is their own apparatus or not. The right of entry is already established in practically every case because the meter invariably belongs to the supply authority. Therefore, the right of the company to get into the premises already exists. The question arises : The inspector having got into the premises, are you going to debar him in the interests of safety and security, or rather are you going to prevent him because he wants to ensure safety by inspecting apparatus from which the authority are supplying the electricity? I have in my house a small electric refrigerator.

Mr. THORNE: No wonder your memory is cold.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Something might be going wrong. I might think that it was prejudicing the supply of electricity generally and it would be wrong for me to be put into a position whereby I could say to the representatives of the County of London Electric Supply Company when they came to my house that they were not allowed to see my refrigerator, though they were entitled, as the law stands, to see the meter in an adjoining room. It is absurd when today most of us buy our electrical apparatus from the manufacturers or representatives of manufacturers, and obtain our supply of electricity from the supply authority. It is true that in a certain number of cases we might have made our purchase of apparatus from the electric supply authority, but in general we have not. To say that you are protecting the Englishman's right of liberty merely because you refuse to let the inspector see the apparatus, though you are compelled at the moment to let him see your meter—

Mr. MAGNAY: After having spoken at such length it is a great blow to me that I have not made myself quite plain. I am concerned about cases where they have never even given an electrical supply, and they have no right to come in to inspect what they have never supplied or generated.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: If that is the hon. Member's point, I am sorry that he did not put down an Amendment to meet it. If he merely wanted to say that a company should have no right of entry to premises where they are not supplying electricity although electricity may be consumed on those premises, I would vote for him but that is not his Amendment. I hope therefore, he will not press it, as it does not achieve the object he has in mind.

2.17 p.m.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: This Amendment has been moved in a Shakesperian and murderous but fascinating speech, but I hope the House will not be moved to accept these Amendments. Fire risks are ever present where electrical power is used, and the freedom asked for John Bull may imply liberty to do acts involving the death of Mrs. Bull, her children and her domestic servant. Inspection will add safety. Apart from factories supplied in bulk, there are many institutions such as hospitals and sanatoria, in the depth of the country, which manufacture electricity in quantity for lighting, power, for X-Ray plant and for surgical purposes. All this involves danger to human life and it would be all to the good if such places were inspected by some big expert undertaking.
The care of human lives is a care to which this House has always given ready attention. The liberty to manufacture gunpowder is carefully inspected and safeguarded; so too is the liberty to manufacture and to use methylated spirits, and I think it would be consonant with the mind and temper of the House not to exempt users of electric power from inspection. Sub-section (3) implies a right to refuse a wrongful, prying inspection. The fine of £5 for a refusal of entry is modest. An inventor anxious to secure the privacy of his patent is by this very Clause protected against any peculiar and improper inspection that may rob him of his ideas and inventions, and no magistrate would in such circumstances convict. This Amendment is a harassing Amendment which serves no good purpose except to entertain the House on a Friday afternoon with a Shakesperian speech on lost liberties.

2.19 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said that the Amendment did not achieve its purpose, but his main objection was that it achieved its purpose much too well. Take the three Amendments together. Fittings have been installed by certain undertakers. What business has anyone else to come in? We do not want to permit any more nosey Parkers. We have quite enough of them already. We have inspectors from cradle to grave, and if not Income Tax inspectors, then we are harassed by panel doctors and debt collectors.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: If as result of a grave defect in the electrical apparatus in a neighbour's house the supply of electricity to the hon. and learned Member was interfered with, would be think it unreasonable that the authorities should have the right to inspect the apparatus?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: That is a case which cannot arise. They can cut off the supply to that place perfectly easily, and that is the usual remedy with the electricity supply company. Let anyone stop paying his bill for a little time, and the supply company cuts him off. The hon. Member for South Croydon, who has made a life-study of electricity, is trying to pull the wool over my eyes, and has not yet succeeded in doing it.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: I understand that the hon. and learned Member objects to inspectors small and large and in quantities, but how does his complaint of being harassed by panel doctors affect his argument about inspection of electricity supplies?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: It is because they both shed the light on something. Para graph (b) of Sub-section (1) says :
The purposes for which premises may be entered shall include the following purposes, that is to say, the inspection of all meters and electric fittings on the premises whether belonging to the undertakers or not.
I do not trust public authorities, municipal or electrical. A public body is ready to commit almost any moral crime on the ground that it is for the public good. The paragraph goes on to say:
the ascertainment of whether or not there is or has been any contravention of any of the Acts or Orders applying to the
undertakers or of any regulation or bye law made thereunder, and, where the undertakers are authorised under the provisions of any such Act, Order, regulation, or bye-law to cut off the supply of electricity to the premises, the cutting off of such supply.
Apparently they can do almost anything they like. Surely one ought to have the right of refusing access to his house to someone to whom he objects, someone in the district to whom he takes the highest possible exception—it may be a person in private life of disreputable character. I bow to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) in matters relating to electricity, but I submit that an electricity company could say to one of its customers "If we wish access to your premises for the purposes of an inspection and you refuse, we shall be entitled to cut off your supply." They could easily frame their contract in that way, and it would be reasonable, but in ail Act of Parliament to give arbitrary powers to people to enter a man's home is altogether wrong. It brings home to me the feeling that there must be truth in what I was told by an eminent electrician, that the whole of the Electricity (Supply) Act was derived from the brain of Lenin. The Conservatives said, "we must do it before the Socialists," and therefore they ran us into the Electricity (Supply) Act.
I regard the proposal which I am now criticising as an impertinent attempt to get access into private houses. A very large number of people to-day are prepared to make their own electricity. The charge for electricity is so high that it would almost pay anybody to make their own electricity. When I was in Edinburgh I had serious thoughts of putting a windmill on the top of my house for the purpose of generating electricity. I could have generated it splendidly, because on the east coast there is always plenty of wind. More and more people will be disposed to generate their own electricity. The tendency of monopolies is to get more and more staff, more and more overhead charges, more and more soft jobs for all sorts of people who cannot get into Government departments, and as a result the monopolies will arrange their prices to suit their overhead charges, and people will be driven into making their own electricity. It is like making gas, I know of one big firm in Glasgow who made their own gas.
They did it at 1s. or 2s. per cubit foot although the Corporation were charging five or six times that amount for industrial gas. The Corporation begged and prayed that firm not to make gas, because they did not want the disease of people making their own gas to spread, otherwise they would be in the street. I believe that many people will make their own electricity in future. Then they will not need to call in a tradesmen to do a little job which would take a couple of days, although it should not take more than a couple of minutes.

This Clause would enable inspectors to have the right of entry at all times, and there is a penalty of £5 for refusing admission. On a particular day there may have been a number of people pretending that they had come to examine the gas meter, the electric light meter, and so on, and they may get away with some of the household property. The more people come into private houses the more danger there is of that sort of thing happening. If admission is refused to the emissary of a public authority, the maximum penalty would no doubt be sought. The Amendment is very sound and sensible and the promoters of the Bill ought to accept it unless they want unreasonable powers. I cannot see why Conservative Members should not support the Amendment. It would do no harm to the Bill and it would allay the suspicion of a great many people.

2.30 p.m.

Mr. GROVES: I have considerable sympathy with the hon. and learned Member for Argyle (Mr. Macquisten) on the point of the privately-owned electric supply, and I think that the promoters of the Bill would not desire to interfere with the ownership of privately-generated electric supply, any more than they would desire to interfere with the privately-owned telephone.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The hon. Member is wrong. The last thing that the public supply company wants is to see private supplies developed. Would a distillery company encourage people to keep private stills?

Mr. GROVES: As a member of the West Ham Council I can testify to the utility of the suggestion contained in the Bill, and I am very sorry to oppose the idea of the hon. Member for Gateshead
(Mr. Magnay). This is a question of a public service for the bulk supply of electricity that is being used by private individuals. The hon. Member for South Croydon put his finger on a very sore spot. Sometimes in the case of a factory or a house a small refrigerator may fuse and the other apparatus of contact may get out of gear. The private owner may not be technically competent to put it in order.

Mr. MAGNAY: Factories, as will be seen by another Amendment, are to be exempted from this right of entry. Only dwelling houses are to be searched.

Mr. W. THORNE: Because they have electricians on the job in factories.

Mr. GROVES: In private houses, especially houses of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Gateshead, some specialised engineering apparatus may be used which will interfere with the supply of electricity to the people in the neighbourhood. In our own area in the last month or two our electrical department has been disturbed because in one of our roads a whole series of electric lamps have been dithering, that is, not giving a persistent illumination at the candle power required. It took a great deal of time, trouble and cost to ascertain the exact cause of that loss of power, and it was not accomplished without transgressing in some way that degree of liberty which is desired by the hon. Member for Gateshead. Surely, in many other walks of life we adopt the same principle. Suppose you go to buy a motor car and you have a fancy for a Ford or a Wolseley, would you say to the people : "what magneto do you fit" If so they would reply : "we fit our own." You would reply, "I must have a Bosch." Then you say, "I must have a different form of gearing." They would reply : "That would interfere with our standard and our service." So in regard to electricity. If in his country home the hon. and learned Member for Argyle is supplying his own electric current, without in any way asking the local authority for any of their supply, and without his interfering with the bulk supply of other people in his neighbourhood, there would be no objection.

Mr. MAGNAY: Why give power to enter?

Mr. GROVES: But if he calls upon an electric supply undertaking to supply him in bulk and wants to use a special apparatus, which the technicians of the undertakers might consider would interfere with the supply of electricity to the general public, surely the undertaking concerned should have the right to ask that their inspectors shall have a right of entry, not to interfere with the liberty of the hon. and learned Member, but to bring to his service the highest skill it has at its command.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: In such a case they are much more likely to condemn my installation in order to force me to buy their own.

Mr. GROVES: There is no evidence that public electricity undertakings in this country have been vexatious or harsh in their treatment of private individuals. That is my experience; not only in the case of electricity but also in the gas industry. I feel sure that the hon. Member for Gateshead has a false idea as to how these powers will be used. They have always been used in the interests of the general public, and I am convinced that the promoters of the Bill are actuated by the best intentions, that is, to bring to the public the highest skill and equipment which electricity undertakings can give.

2.38 p.m.

Mr. THORNE: I must oppose the Amendment. It is well known that in many cases electric wires have been disconnected and electricity consumed without paying for it. It is also well known that gas pipes have been disconnected and gas consumed without paying for it. Nobody can find this out unless there is a right of entry to see whether wires have been disconnected. For the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) to talk about the right of entry and interference with the liberty of the individual is all moonshine and rubbish. We have no individual liberty anywhere. A municipality or an undertaking, if they find defects in the wiring of electricity or in the supply of gas, should have a right of entry in the interests of the public. If a consumer of gas has a pipe disconnected he will, of course, refuse an inspector the right of entry. If a consumer of electricity has his wires disconnected and a knock comes to the door and the man is recognised as an official of the electricity
undertaking, that individual will, of course, be denied a right of entry. I say that they should have a perfect right to enter, in the same way as an official of the Metropolitan Water Board has a right of entry when it is a case of faulty taps. Surely, you are not going to allow the leakage to go on?

Mr. MAGNAY: But suppose I am getting my water from a well, what right has the water company to come in and inspect my taps?

Mr. THORNE: They will know that you are not using their water. The Metropolitan Water Board know their customers; they have their names and addresses in their books.

Mr. MAGNAY: Why should they come to non-consumers?

Mr. THORNE: The right of entry is all moonshine. Factory inspectors have a right to go into a factory, and a sanitary inspector has a right to go into your house. I think they are perfectly justified too.

2.42 p.m.

Sir G. HUME: I hope the House will not accept the Amendments of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay). The question of the apparatus, whether it is supplied by the electricity undertaking itself or purchased from outside, is not the most important thing, the important thing is that it is connected UP with the generating station. If the apparatus is faulty great damage may be done at the generating station and, therefore,

it is in the consumer's own interests, if the apparatus is faulty or there is a risk of a shortage, that he should be protected from fire on his own premises and also that those who are taking current from the same main should be protected against such dangers. We have heard wonderful speeches this afternoon on constitutional rights, but as an inspector can now enter into houses to examine meters it is not going much further to say that he shall go into a house to see that the electrical apparatus is in working order and will not cause damage to the occupant or to his neighbours. If the Clause is so wide that it includes people who do not take their supply from the undertaking that is another point which can be looked into at some other stage, but as far as these Amendments are concerned I hope that the House will not accept them.

2.44 p.m.

Mr. G. PETO: I agree with the proposal. No factory which is producing its own electricity could be entered if we pass the Amendments suggested by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay). That is the answer to the whole difficulty. We. took a great deal of trouble upstairs to try and lick the Bill into shape from the point of view of the consumers, and I suggest that it is no good trying to talk out a useful and innocent Bill like this because hon. Members want to keep off another Bill.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided : Ayes, 53; Noes, 87.

Division No. 241.]
AYES
[2.45 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Hales, Harold K.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Rickards, George William


Broadbent, Colonel John
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lockwood, John C (Hackney, C.)
Rutherford,


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Mabane, William
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
McCorquodale, M. S.
Scone, Lord


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
McKie, John Hamilton
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Denville, Alfred
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Dickie, John P.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Spens, William Patrick


Duckworth, George A. V.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) C. J.
Summersby, Charles H.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Moreing, Adrian
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Moss, Captain H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Peto, Sir Basil E (Devon, B'nstaple) H.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut-Colonel George


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.



Goldie, Noel B.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Romer, John R.
Mr. Magnay and Mr. Macquisten.


NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Banfield, John William
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm


Cape, Thomas
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hicks, Ernest George
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cooke, Douglas
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cove, William G.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rothschild, James A. de


Crossley, A. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Daggar, George
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Strauss, Edward A.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Dobbie, William
Ker, J. Campbell
Sutcliffe, Harold


Edwards, Charles
Leckie, J. A.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Thorne, William James


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Goff, Sir Park
McEntee, Valentine L.
West, F. R.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mainwaring, William Henry
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maitland, Adam
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wilmot, John


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wise, Alfred R.


Hamilton, Sir R. W. Orkney Zetl'nd)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Womersley, Walter James


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Palmer, Francis Noel
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Penny, Sir George



Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M,
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bistt'n)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Mr. Eales and Mr. Thorp.

2.52 p.m.

Mr. THORP: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 11 to 14.

The Clause in which these words appear is in no way germane to the question of cutting off the supply of electricity. The Clause is concerned only with the right of entry, and in the circumstances it would be improved by the omission of these words.

Sir G. HUME: I beg to second the Amendment.

2.53 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: This is an Amendment which I think the House should accept without any division, because it does go some way towards improving the condition of the consumer. It is a concession for which I thank the promoters. I cannot for the life of me imagine why these words ever got into the Bill or why the Committee did not deal with them.

Amendment agreed to.

2.54 p.m.

Mr. THORP: I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, after "producing," to insert "on demand."
There is an absurdity in leaving the Bill as it is drafted, because it would mean that an officer would have to produce written authority in the case of unoccupied premises. If anyone were on the premises, of course the authority would be produced when asked for, but, if there is no one there to ask for the authority it is ridiculous solemnly to
suggest that anyone should produce written authority when premises are not occupied.

Sir J. LAMB: I beg to second the Amendment.

2.55 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I think it is a scandal that these words without the addition "on demand" should have got into the Bill at all, in any circumstances. My hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that they make nonsense and would create an impossible position under the Bill. I congratulate him upon having found out the mistake before it was too late and upon having saved us from passing a Bill containing such an absurdity.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made : In page 4, line 33, after "of," insert :
and producing on demand written authority from."—[Mr. Thorp.]

2.56 p.m.

Mr. THORP: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, at the end to insert:
(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply to or in respect of any building or premises (not being a dwelling-house) be longing to any railway company, harbour authority, navigation authority, or conservancy authority or tramway, light railway, gas, water or electricity undertakers, and used for the purposes of their undertaking or to any building or premises in the occupation of any local authority (including a county council) or which form part of any premises any part of which is occupied as a factory or workshop to which the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, applies.
All the big organisations such as those mentioned in the Amendment have, in these days, their own staffs of electricians and it does not seem necessary that there should be any power of entry into their premises for purposes of inspection. One objection to this power or entry mentioned on a previous Amendment was that people might possibly purloin or wrongfully acquire certain secrets in regard to research work which was being done by such organisations as these. It is proposed to insert this Sub-section to meet that objection as well as for the other reason I have mentioned.

Sir G. HUME: I beg to second the Amendment.

2.58 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am amazed at the hon. and learned Gentleman proposing this Amendment. It is all right for him to refer to any building or premises belonging to a railway company, harbour authority and so forth, but he did not explain to the House the concluding words of his Amendment in which he proposes to exclude any building or premises
any part of which is occupied as a factory or workshop to which the Factory and Workshop Act of 1901 applies.
These words would cover practically every undertaking, however small. Indeed, they would cover practically everything except dwelling houses. I wish to say that we on this side do not intend speaking for the purpose of destroying the chances of this Bill. We want the Bill to become law to-day. But, upon that score, the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends have themselves tabled practically all the Amendments to their own Bill, which appear on the Paper, and they must take the responsibility if its chances are destroyed. Having said so much on that point I would only add that while arguments have been put forward to show why I ought to allow these people to come into my house, I could multiply arguments in favour of inspectors going into every small factory throughput the country where there are no electricians. The hon. and learned Member represents a constituency in Lancashire and I am sure he knows that there are probably hundreds of little factories in Lancashire where they do
not know any more about electricity and electrical apparatus than I do. Consequently we oppose the insertion of these words.

3 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: This is either a wrecking Amendment or else it is designed to confine the power of inspection to private dwelling houses. If the Bill is good enough for private dwelling houses, then this power of entry should apply in these other cases., I have no enmity to the Bill, but I ask what is the reason for exempting local authorities for instance—in some cases badly administered authorities—while retaining within the scope of the Bill the ordinary well-managed private dwelling house. Either take away the power of entry for inspection purposes altogether or retain it altogether. I cannot understand excluding these big works from it. I do not know what the Government are going to do about the Amendment, but I should be reluctant to vote for a proposal which gives a class privilege to local authorities and large concerns and denies it to the individual. If I had any encouragement from the Government I should be inclined to vote against the Amendment. We should not make this distinction. This should be a clear cut principle and should not involve any question of privilege.

3.2 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: There seems to be no good reason why this Amendment should not be accepted down to the words "a county council," on the ground that Clause 5 is not designed to cover the right of entry into the premises of such large bodies as those specified in the Amendment down to that point. There is, however, a difficulty as to the concluding part of the Amendment which refers to premises occupied as a factory or workshop. The definition of "factory and workshop" is very wide. You might have a workshop at the back of a private house and it would be difficult to decide whether that was a dwelling house or a factory.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Is it not the case that the same problem arises to-day in regard to rating and that there is a method of testing whether premises are
used for manufacturing purposes or for the purposes of a dwelling house? Could not the same test be applied in this case?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: i think it would be extremely difficult and the fact that there is a difficulty in one case is no reason for extending the difficulty to another case. It is, of course, unlikely that public authorities would object to inspectors going in to see if their electricity supply was safely installed and there is no harm in exempting them from the provisions of the Clause but when we come down to factories and workshops we are faced with the difficulty of deciding what is a factory or workshop. I suggest to the House that if they accept the Amendment they should leave out the concluding words.

Mr. ALBERY: If the Parliamentary Secretary is in favour of the Amendment, will he say a few words to justify it?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have no objection to the Amendment, and I gave what I thought was a reason for it, namely, that as far as public bodies and local authorities are concerned, when they have electrical installations they are not likely unwarrantably to refuse admission to people who come to see that they are safe.

3.5 p.m.

Mr. G. PETO: If they are not likely to be refused entry, there is no earthly reason for this Clause; if they are not likely to be refused, they will be admitted. I thought the Minister realised that this Clause, unless it is amended to exclude factories and workshops, will give the power of entry into any factory or workshop with electrical fittings of any sort, whether they are generating their own electricity or not. They may have nothing to do with the supply company, which may not have a cable within half-a-mile of their works, yet they will have the right to go in and inspect their secret processes, or whatever they are doing, and anything else they like. I do hope that the House will accept the Amendment, or else Clause 5 is most dangerous.

3.6 p.m.

Sir CHRISTOPHER CLAYTON: I ask the House to accept the Clause as it is, because it is impossible for those of us who own works, and especially
research works and works with secret processes, to admit the representatives of the undertakers to go where they like in those works and do what they like. We are under the Factory Acts, and the factory inspectors are bound by the Official Secrets Act. The consequence is that we admit those men throughout our works, but I think industrial manufacturers cannot possibly agree to admit the undertakers' representatives to wander through their works and go where they like.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Does the hon. Member mean to imply that there are more secrets in a factory than in a home?

Sir C. CLAYTON: It depends on the home and on the factory. Those of us who are responsible for factories have to look after them, as no doubt the hon. Gentleman looks after the home.

Mr. ROSS TAYLOR: Factory inspectors have the right of inspection, and not only so, but they have a duty laid upon them of examining the electrical fittings, and any hon. Member who takes the trouble to look at the annual report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops will see that each year very great care is given to the state of the electrical fittings in factories and such places.

3.7 p.m.

Mr. A. REED: While strongly supporting this Amendment, I would point out that there is this difference between factories and other buildings. Nearly every factory has its own skilled engineers, by whom the machinery is looked after and the repairs are done, and, therefore, there is not the risk that there might be in a house of having defective apparatus. I strongly stress that point, because there are many processes which cannot be patented, for obvious reasons, and if people come into factories and wander where they like, where these secret processes as opposed to patented processes are in operation, that is not what we should expect in this country.

3.8 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: At the present time in many factories they contract to keep their electrical fittings in order, as well as their gas fittings. The inspector comes in and does not ask to see the manager.- He simply walks
through, does the job, and goes away; and I am confident, working as I do in a factory where secret processes are carried out, that no inspector in the time during which he was in that factory could fathom any ordinary secret process. I do not think there is anything at all in the argument that an inspector should not be allowed to roam over the factory and look after the apparatus.

3.9 p.m.

Mr. SPENS: I feel myself in a great difficulty on this Amendment. I would remind the House that under Section 24 of the 1882 Act, which we are extending, the officer of any undertaking which supplies electricity has the right to go in and inspect and examine all the fittings supplied by that particular undertaking. As far as I know, there is no exception to that power of inspection given by that Section, whether the premises be factories, or belong to railway companies or local undertakings or anything else. The only point is that if the undertaking supplies electricity and has its fittings and so forth on the premises, the right of inspection exists and that right is not even dealt with by this Amendment, and will remain exactly the same.

Now by Sub-section (1) of this Clause we have given the right of inspection to an officer of an undertaking, whether that undertaking is supplying the factory or the railway company or anything else, as long as it situated in the area. That is an entirely new right of inspection and a very extended and serious right, and as soon as it is put in by Sub-section (1) everyone claims to be left out by the new Sub-section (4). We therefore have everybody claiming to be exempted from this extended right of inspection by this new Sub-section except the unfortunate owner of a dwelling house or a shop. These are the only people who will be left in. I cannot believe the promoters of the Bill intended to give to an undertaking the right of inspection of premises to which they did not supply electricity. In so far as Sub-section (1) still stands, I shall support the Amendment so as to limit the right of inspection to as low a point as possible, although it is unfair that the inspection should remain solely for the owner of a private house or shop.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes 66; Noes, 67.

Division No. 242.]
AYES.
[3.13 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Allan, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rickards, George William


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Bossom, A. C.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Scone, Lord


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Ker, J. Campbell
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Cheater, City)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Spens, William Patrick


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Leckie, J. A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Cooke, Douglas
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Sutcliffe, Harold


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (somerset, Yeovil)
McKie, John Hamilton
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Dickie, John P.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Duckworth, George A. V.
Magnay, Thomas
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Maitland, Adam
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Galbraith, James Francs Wallace
Moreing, Adrian C.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Golf, Sir Park
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Goldie, Noel B.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Wise, Alfred R.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W
Peto, Geoffrey MW'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Womersley, Walter James


Grimston, R. V.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.



Hales, Harold K.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Remer, John R.
Mr. Thorp and Mr. Eales.


NOES.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Daggar, George
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur


Banfield, John William
Denville, Alfred
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Dobbie, William
Groves, Thomas E.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Edwards, Charles
Grundy, Thomas W.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Cape, Thomas
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Crossley, A. C.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Hicks, Ernest George
Milner, Major James
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Holdsworth, Herbert
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Thorne, William James


Howard, Tom Forrest
Palmer, Francis Noel
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Penny, Sir George
Wayland, Sir William A.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Mabane, William
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wilmot, John


Mc Entee, Valentine L.
Rothschild, James A. de
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)



Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mainwaring, William Henry
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Beltast)
Mr. Charles Brown and Mr. G.


Margesson, capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strauss, Edward A.
Macdonald.


Mayhew. Lieut.-Colonel John
Summersby, Charles H.

CLAUSE 6.—(Acquisition of land for substations.)

3.21 p.m.

Mr. G. PETO: I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, after "applies," to insert:
or which has been acquired for the purpose of any such factory or workshop.

This Amendment protects a factory from available land upon its boundaries which it requires for extension being acquired for a sub-station. Probably that land is the only direction in which the factory can extend, and the factory owners may have had to pay a very high price to acquire it. If the supply company were to be able to acquire that piece of land for a sub-station, it would probably mean that the factory would have to close down and move elsewhere. On the other hand, the electricity supply company have ample opportunity of finding somewhere else in the area to erect a sub-station.

3.22 p.m.

Mr. A. REED: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Clause gives very big powers for compulsory purchase, not only in regard to sub-stations, but for various distributive purposes. If a factory has land on which the owners want to extend and which they had bought for an additional factory, the whole of the land might be coveted by the electricity undertakers and compulsorily acquired. In sub section (2) there are various exemptions in respect of land adjoining a house or a farm, and I suggest that it is important to safeguard factories in these days where they have need of or contemplate extension, in order that the land which they have acquired for that purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

3.24 p.m.

Sir J. LAMB: I beg to move, in page 5, line 30, at the end, insert:
(b) the compulsory acquisition of any land situated nearer to the middle of a highway than a building or improvement line prescribed by a highway authority or a local authority under the provisions of the Roads Improvement Act, 1925, or the Public Health Act, 1925, or otherwise;
(c) the use of any land for any purpose which contravenes any provision of any scheme, order, or regulation made under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, or the Town Planning Act, 1925, or the town planning provisions of any private Act and applicable to such land.
The object of the Amendment is to ensure that land shall not be taken for the erection of transformer stations by the local undertakers. We have already protection for railways, docks, cannals, factories, workshops and aerodromes in the Clause, and we have just given protection to other factories. Where an authority has taken precautions in the public interest in regard to land that they require, we do not think that they should be over-ridden by the powers given in this Clause. I do not apologise for bringing forward this Amendment again. When it was brought forward in Committee, negotiations were taking place between the promoters and the County Councils' Association, and I was asked by the promoters to delay bringing it forward until this stage, to give them an opportunity of completing the negotiations. The County Councils' Association still wish to obtain the consent of the House to the insertion of these words in. the Bill, and I understand that the promoters do not object.

3.25 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Amendment raises two points. The new paragraph (b) definitely says that the promoters of any scheme under the
Act shall not build closer to the road than people are ordinarily allowed to build—that is to say, it preserves the possibility of having a wide road. Paragraph (c) excludes any land which has been acquired for the purposes of town planning, so that the electrical people, who are being given such very great privileges by this Bill, shall not be able to over-ride the Town Planning Act. Many of us who have taken a great interest in preserving the amenities of local authorities realise that no one should be able to over-ride those amenities and break down the provisions of the Town Planning Act. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted. I feel sure that the Minister of Transport, if he has his way, will support it. It seems to me to be an Amendment which will at any rate make the Bill a little better than it was before, and its insertion now will mean that less work will have to be done in another place.

3.27 p.m.

Mr. THORP: I venture to submit to the House that the insertion of this Amendment is not necessary. There seemed to be some anxiety on the part of the Mover as to whether the Bill would have the effect of overriding the Town Planning Act. In my submission it would have no such effect, and the provisions of the Amendment are really unnecessary. The Clause only authorises the acquisition of land in pursuance of the powers of Acts and Orders, and if land were acquired under the Town Planning Act, the Clause would not apply. In the circumstances, I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.

3.28 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made the position quite clear to us. Already during the day he has accepted Amendments which we all felt to be unnecessary except for the purpose of excluding the possibility of certain things being done. It seems to me that there is an ambiguity in the Bill on the points mentioned by the Mover of the Amendment, and we on these benches, if the Amendment is taken to a Division, will vote in favour of it, in order that the position may be made absolutely clear in relation to town planning.

Mr. THORP: I venture to submit that the Amendment is not necessary, but, if hon. Members like to press it, I do not propose to oppose it.

Mr. DAVIES: I was going to say that we have excluded so many types of land already under this Clause, and we are excluding so much by the Amendment, that I am beginning to wonder where any land will be available upon which to put these undertakings. In any case we shall support the Amendment.

3.29 p.m.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: The confusion into which we are getting on this Bill is further illustrated by this Amendment and by the observations of my hon. and learned Friend upon it. He first of all explained to the House categorically that the Amendment is entirely unnecessary to protect the interests which the Mover states to be affected. In the next breath, when the hon. Gentleman opposite makes certain observations, he says he does not propose to oppose the Amendment if the matter is pressed. It seems to me to illustrate the confusion into which we are getting in our legislation. Any observations that I have made have not been so much directed to matters of electricity supply in particular as to the procedure that is adopted in this very complicated Bill. I hope the hon. Gentleman will resist the Amendment if only for the purpose of seeing that we get clear and well-defined legislation on the Statute Book.

Sir J. LAMB: May I point out that the purpose for which land is required is for the erection of sub-stations.

3.31 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: In our opinion, this Amendment is not necessary. At the same time, I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety on the matter, and I suggested to him that the subject should be discussed between Committee and Report between the promoters and the County Councils Association. I think that discussion has taken place.

Sir J. LAMB: That is exactly what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said to me in Committee. The County Councils Association instruct me that he had no authority to say it, and the negotiations are not finished. That is why I have put down the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: My hon. Friend entirely misunderstands me. I do not suggest that there should be any further discussions. I think the Amendment is not necessary because the points are covered by the existing law. I do not propose therefore, to take any action one way or the other.

3.33 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I think we are entitled to protest against the course that is being pursued of attempting to put into one Act of Parliament provisions which already exist in others. I understand it is clear that if an Act of Parliament operates and another Act comes along, unless it expressly repeals the provisions of the earlier Act, they remain in operation. The provisions of the Town Planning Act are in operation. This

Clause must be regarded for that purpose as merely an addition to the Town Planning Act. It is governed by the Town Planning Act, and it is reducing Parliament to a farce if you put the same provision into two Acts of Parliament.

3.34 p.m.

Mr. CAPORN: I rise to ask my hon. Friend whether he will not withdraw his Amendment in the interest of local authorities themselves. If it is passed, it may well be that local authorities who are their own electricity supply undertakers will be prevented from putting underneath one of their own main roads some chamber or apparatus that is necessary for their own supply.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 86.

Division No. 243.]
AYES.
[3.35 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Aske, Sir Robert William
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notte., Mansfield)
Groves, Thomas E.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Grundy, Thomas W,
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Beflast)


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Thorne, William James


Dagger, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Leckie, J. A.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Davies, Rhys john (Westhoughton)
Mabane, William
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Denville, Alfred
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wilmot, John


Dobbie, William
McEntee, Valentino L.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Edwards, Charles
McGovern, John



Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Magnay, Thomas
Sir Joseph Lamb and Mr. Brocklebank,




NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pownall. Sir Asshaton


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Remer, John R.


Bossom, A. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rickards, George William


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ross, Ronald D


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Ker, J. Campbell
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Cooke, Douglas
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Scone, Lord


Crossley, A. C.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Strauss, Edward A.


Dickie, John P.
McKie, John Hamilton
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Duckworth, George A. V.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Summersby, Charles H.


Eales, John Frederick
Haltland, Adam
Sutcliffe, Harold


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Meller, Sir Richard James
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Goldie, Noel B.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Grimston, R. V
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wise, Alfred R.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)



Hales, Harold K.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Penny, Sir George
Mr. Herbert Williams and Mr.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Caporn.

CLAUSE 8.—(Dwelling-houses for employés.)

Amendment made : In page 6, line 24, after "houses," insert "for such persons."—[Sir G. Hume.]

CLAUSE 10.—(Attachment of brackets, etc., to buildings and bridges.)

Mr. MOREING: I beg to move, in page 8, line 23, after "undertakers," to insert "at their own expense."
This is a rather technical matter which brings statutory undertakings as other bodies under the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

3.43 p.m.

Sir G. HUME: I beg to move, in page 8, line 31, at the end, to insert:
(7) In this section the expression 'owner'—

(a) in relation to a building occupied under a tenancy for a term of years whereof fire years or more remains unexpired, means the occupier of the building;
(b) in relation to a building occupied under any other tenancy, means the person who is receiving the rack rent or who would receive the rack rent if the building were let at a rack rent;
(c) in relation to a building forming part of an aerodrome licensed pursuant to an order made under the Air Navigation Act, 1920, means (notwithstanding anything in this Sub-section) the person having control of the aerodrome;

and the expression 'own' shall be construed accordingly; and the expression 'rack rent' means in relation to a building a rent which is not less than two-thirds of the full net annual value of the building.
This is really a definition Sub-section. It requires the undertakers to obtain the consent of the owner before attaching a bracket to a building, and it seems only fair that where there is a long tenancy, the tenant should be the one to be dealt with.

3.44 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I think that we ought to have a little more explanation of this Amendment, which covers a very wide extent of ground; it is almost a new Clause. In regard to paragraph (a), we have never been told why five years is stated. If a small bracket is put in a building, it may be of equal concern to a person whether the tenancy is for one,
three or five years. Five years is an arbitrary term. I am willing to accept it if any hon. Member can give a real explanation of the position. The Amendment also refers to a building occupied by any other tenancy. That raises the question of rack rents. This is a matter rather beyond my ken; it does not relate to the standardisation of hours, but to the standardisation of rents. This is really not a very small matter. It deals with a question of public convenience. It may be necessary to insert a bracket and poles, and I want to see it made as easily easy as possible, but I do not see why we should accept this Amendment merely because the hon. Member says that it is what we have to do. We are not here for that purpose, and the House will be ill-advised to just open its mouth and swallow this long Amendment without a clear definition of what it means. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can explain it. He has explained many Amendments this afternoon, and he may have something to say about this.

Mr. ALBERY: There seems to be some substance in what the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has said, and I think it would help if the Parliamentary Secretary would just say a few words.

3.47 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am always glad to help the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) if I can. These words were moved in the Committee, but there was apparently some misunderstanding, and the Amendment was disallowed. It is necessary, however, to define the word "owner," and the first part of the Amendment simply de fines the meaning of the word "owner." It is obvious that in the case of a long tenancy the person really interested is the tenant—

Mr. ALBERY: The matters on which we feel concern are not so much what the Amendment means, we understand that, but what we want to know is whether the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that it is a good interpretation.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am satisfied that it is a good interpretation and that it is necessary.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The Parliamentary Secretary says that there was a misunderstanding in Committee. Are we to understand that the Committee turned down words which we are now being asked to put in?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I cannot recollect if this Amendment was actually proposed in Committee, but the question of the necessity of a definition of "owner" was discussed, and these words are introduced to carry it out.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we contradicting a decision of the Committee?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No, I do not think that we are doing that.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. A. REED: There is an important principle here. For the first time the word "owner" is being defined and, apparently, it means a tenancy of five years and upwards. The House, I am

sure, does not want to give away the rights of an owner to a tenant of five years.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. MAGNAY: The House of Commons is the best place for getting cheap law. Last Friday we had many sound lawyers and incipient judges giving their opinion on most abstract points of law. Now we are proposing to define an owner, and it is a serious thing that in such a small Bill as this we should put in the definition of an owner as one who has a lease on premises for five years or more. I think we should be careful before we accept this definition. Probably the hon. and learned Member in charge of the Bill has no strong objections to the Amendment. All this afternoon he has reminded me of the passage—
A little still she strove, and much repented, and whispring 'I will ne'er consent'—consented.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided : Ayes, 78; Noes, 53.

Division No. 244.]
AYES.
[3.53 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Remer, John R.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Howard, Tom Forrest
Rickards, George William


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Ker, J. Campbell
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Scone, Lord


Cooke, Douglas
Leckle, J. A.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Crossley, A. C.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Summersby, Charles H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lovat Fraser, James Alexander
Sutcliffe, Harold


Denville, Alfred
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Duckworth, George A. V.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Milner, Major James
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Unlv)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Wilmot, John


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wise, Alfred R.


Grimston, R. V.
Penny, Sir George
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, I.)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)



Hales, Harold K.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Sir George Hume and Brigadier-


Hanley, Dennis A.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
General Nation.


NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dickie, John P.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dobbie, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Edwards, Charles
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Banfield, John William
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)


Bossom, A. C.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Mabane, William


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McGovern, John


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Goldie, Noel B.
McKie, John Hamilton


Cape, Thomas
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Groves, Thomas E.
Magnay, Thomas


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maitland, Adam


Daggar, George
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streetham)


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Somervilte, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Strauss, Edward A.



Ropner, Colonel L.
Thorne, William James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Mr. C. Brown and Mr. C. Macdonald.


Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

It being after Four of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, further consideration of the Bill, as amended stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2.

Adjourned at Three Minutes after Four o'Clock.